Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564362",
    "label": "Press Releases - June 1973",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564362"
}

{
    "id": "118564362",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564362",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Press Releases - June 1973",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564362",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Press Releases"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408623/40-840-7408623-P14-012-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408623/40-840-7408623-P14-012-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408623/40-840-7408623-P14-012-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564362",
    "naId": 118564362,
    "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/7408623/40-840-7408623-P14-012-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "09e017ef42dfa365",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Press Releases - June 1973\nBox: P14\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RC ALD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nImmediate\nSacramento, Californi\n95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-1-73\n#295\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the following bills have\nbeen signed:\nAB 81 - Duffy\nRequires the Department of Mental Hygiene to\nChapter 70\nparticipate with the City of Porterville in the\nconstruction of interceptor sewer facilities for\nPorterville State Hospital and provides for the\nstate to expend from any available funds 20 percent\nof the construction bid or $60,000 whichever is less\nfor such purposes.\nAB 151 - Lancaster\nAuthorizes the Director of General Services, with\nChapter 68\nthe approval of the Department of Mental Hygiene and\nthe State Public Works Board, to convey approximately\n6.8 acres of land at Pacific State Hospital to the\nCity of Pomona for use as a fire station.\nAB 249 - Warren\nMakes nonsubstantive amendments to the Food and\nChapter 71\nAgricultural, Public Resources, and Water Codes.\nAB 455 - Lanterman\nRevises the requirements regarding advertisements,\nChapter 73\nbrochures, and manuals for 1974 or later model year\ngasoline-powered motor vehicles which contain any\nreference to the vehicle's horsepower.\nAB 562 - Warren\nClarifies legislative intent that allowances for a\nChapter 74\nspecified dropout prevention program based upon a\nfurlough plan be made from the State School Fund.\nSB 207 - Schrade\nExempts from property taxation the possessory interest\nChapter 72\nwhich a nonprofit zoological society has in publicly\nowned land while operating a ZOO or horticultural\ndisplay.\nSB 251 - Nejedly\nMakes technicalamendments to legislation enacted in\nChapter 69\n1972 which increased the membership of retirement\nboards in counties included under the County\nEmployees' Retirement Law of 1937.\n# # # #\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nmediate\nSacramento, Californi 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-1-73\n#296\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointments of three\nSuperior Court and two Municipal Court judges in Los Angeles.\nNamed to the Superior Court Bench were Municipal Court Judges\nThomas T. Johnson of Pacific Palisades, Albert D. Matthews of Compton and\nRobert H. London of Encino.\nJohnson, a 50 year old Democrat, was appointed to his Municipal\nCourt post in 1971 by Governor Reagan. He succeeds Superior Court Judge\nEdward Brand, who has retired. A native of Louisville, Kentucky, he\nreceived a degree in mechanical engineering in 1946 and his law degree in\n1949, both from the University of Louisville. He has practiced law in\nLos Angeles since 1959. He and his wife Marianne have two minor children.\nMatthew, 50, who was appointed Municipal Court judge of the Compton\nJudicial District in 1968 by Governor Reagan, is a Republican. He succeeds\nSuperior Court Judge Joseph Call, who has retired. Matthews received his\nundergraduate training and law degree from Howard University in Washington,\nD.C. He graduated from the University's law school in 1954 with honors.\nHe and his wife Mildred have a daughter, age nine.\nLondon, 40, who declines to state his political affiliation, was\nuppointed to the Municipal Court bench in Los Angeles Judicial District\nin Van Nuys by Governor Reagan in 1971. He succeeds Superior Court Judge\nCharles Stratton, who has retired. London, who was born in Brookings,\nSouth Dakota, is an honor graduate of the University of California at\nLos Angeles with a B.A. Degree in political science. He received his law\ndegree from the University of Southern California in 1958, graduating in\nthe top 15 percent of his class. He and his wife Ruthe have two children.\nThe three new Superior Court judges will receive an annual salary\nof $36,393.\nNamed to the Municipal Court bench in the Los Angeles Judicial\nDistrict were Brian D. Crahan, chief deputy city attorney for Los Angeles,\nand Lawrence C. Waddington, assistant attorney general and former deputy\ndistrict attorney of Los Angeles County, who lives in Santa Monica.\nCrahan, 38 year old Republican, is a native of Los Angeles. He\nsucceeds Judge Johnson. He is a 1957 graduate of Pomona College and\nreceived his law degree from UCLA in 1961. He has been a member of the\nCity Attorney's office since 1961. He and his wife Michele have a minor\ndaughter.\nWaddington, 42, a Republican, succeeds Judge London. He is a 1953\nraduate of Colorado College, Colorado Springs, Colorado, and received his\naw degree in 1956 from UCLA. He was a deputy district attorney of Los\nngeles County from 1958-70. He and his wife Jennie have four minor\nhildren.\nCrahan and Waddington will receive $33,481 yearly salaries.\n#########\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE\nImmediate\nSacramento, Californ 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-1-73\n#297\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointment of\nErnest L. Casares, a San Diego dentist, to the Board of Dental\nExaminers in the Department of Consumer Affairs.\nDr. Casares, a 56-year-old Republican, fills the vacancy created\nby the resignation of Dr. Philip H. Pope of San Bernardino.\nA graduate of San Diego State College in 1939, Dr. Casares received\nhis dental degree in 1943 from the University of Southern California.\nIn addition to his private practice in San Diego, Dr. Casares is an\ninstructor in operative dentistry at USC. He is a former president of\nthe San Diego County Dental Society, former chairman of the San Diego\nChildren's Dental Health Center, and former president of the San Diego\nchapter of the Academy of General Dentistry.\nDr. Casares and his wife Wilma have two children.\nBoard members receive $28 a day per diem when on official duty.\n######\nAddress:\nErnest L. Casares, D.D.S.\n3702 Park Boulevard\nSan Diego, California 92103\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nmmediate\nSacramento, Californ. 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-1-73\n#298\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointment of\nJames L. Dumas of Chowchilla to the board of directors of the 21a\nDistrict Agricultural Association, sponsor of the Madera District Fair.\nGovernor Reagan also announced the reappointments to four-year terms\nof Eugene R. Trombley of Novato and Stanley W. McDonald of Petaluma as\nmembers of the 4th District Agricultural Association, sponsor of the\nSonoma-Marin District Fair.\nDumas, a 56-year-old Republican, fills the vacancy created by the\nresignation of Joe D. Law of Chowchilla. His term will expire\nJanuary 15, 1974. A native of Judsonia, Arkansas, he attended Harding\nCollege in Searcy, Arkansas, and Arkansas State Teachers College,\nConway, Arkansas. Former rice farmer, he is a Chowchilla businessman\nTrombley, 66, has been a member of the 4th District board since\n1969. A Novato businessman, Trombley is a Republican. He is a member\nof the Marin County Planning Commission, and a former chairman of the\nMarin County Airport Commission.\nMcDonald, 52-year-old Republican, has served the board since 1971.\nThe asistant vice president of the Bank of Marin, McDonald is a member\nof the Wilson School Board of Governors, the Petaluma Chamber of Commerce,\nand is a director of the 4-H Dairy Heifer Placement Program.\nBoard members are paid their necessary expenses.\n######\nAddresses:\nJim Dumas\nEugene R. Trombley\n373 Circle Drive\n1631 Ignacio Boulevard\nChowchilla 93610\nNovato 94947\nStanley W. McDonald\n1000 Chileno Valley Drive\nPetaluma 94952\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR F ALD REAGAN\nMEMO TO 1\nL-\nPRESS\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-1-73\n#299\nGOVERNOR'S SCHEDULE\nJune 4, 1973\nthrough\nJune 10, 1973\nMonday, June 4\nthrough\nNational Governors' Conference, Lake Tahoe,\nWednesday, June 6\nNevada.\nOvernight - Sacramento\nThursday, June 7\nNo public appointments scheduled.\nOvernight - Los Angeles\nFriday, June 8\nNoon\nGoodwill Industries Luncheon, Biltmore Bowl,\nBiltmore Hotel, Los Angeles. Speech.\nOvernight - LOS\nSaturday, June 9\n4:00 p.m.\nMount St. Mary's College Commencement,\nMount St. Mary's College, Los Angeles.\nOvernight - Los Angeles\nSunday, June 10\nNo appointments scheduled.\nOvernight - Los Angeles\n######\nGray\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RO ALD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nmediate\nSacramento, Californ. 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-1-73\n#300\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced he has vetoed the following\nbill:\nAB 368 - Brown\nWould generally prohibit school districts from\nadministering tests, or using individual scores\nfrom tests, which measure or attempt to measure\nthe scholastic aptitude of pupils.\nREASON FOR VETO:\n\"I would be sympathetic to legislation aimed at\neliminating possibilities for misinterpretation\nof the meaning of aptitude test scores. This\nshould be done by requiring that administration and\ninterpretation of tests---group or individual-- be\ndone by or under the close supervision of\nappropriately qualified persons. Qualified persons\ndo not make final judgments regarding a child's\nability on one test alone. They are aware of the\nmargin of error for any specific test. They know\nthe degree of appropriateness of a specific test\nfor use with individuals of varying backgrounds.\n\"The language of AB 368 kills aptitude testing\nrather than preventing its misuse. It provides\nthat, 'No school district may administer in\nconnection with the statewide testing program, or\notherwise, any group standardized test, or any other\ntest, which measures or attempts to measure the\nscholastic aptitude of a pupil to any pupil or\ngroup of pupils in the district.' This restriction\nis too broad and removes from local school boards\nthe right to utilize a valuable testing procedue.\n\"I note that AB 368 accepts aptitude tests as part\nof psychological evaluation. They are accepted\nfor placement in postsecondary education and to\ndetermine scholarship eligibility. Tests useful\nfor these purposes are too valuable---whether used\nin a group or individual setting--- to eliminate.\n\"Accordingly, I am returning the bill unsigned.\"\nGovernor Reagan today also announced he has signed the following\nbill:\nSB 112 - Rodda\nProhibits experimentation on live vertebrate\nChapter 76\nanimals in the state's public elementary and\nhigh schools.\nUpon signing the bill the governor made the following statement:\n\"It is with some uneasiness that I sign SB 112.\nI was surprised to find only one letter of opposi-\ntion from educators in the State of California\nonly one letter in a state with 1100 school\ndistricts and 221 accredited postsecondary\ninstitutions. I was surprised because of the\npossible loss of valueable laboratory experience\nfor students who will go on to study biology and\nmedical and veterinary science in college. If\neducational damage should result, I will propose\ncorrective legislation.\n#####\nWalthall\nThe following was provided to governors and press at the National Governor's\nConference at Lake Tahc\nJune 4, 1973:\nGOVERNOR REAGAN'S\nPROPOSED CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT\nFOR REVENUE CONTROL AND TAX REDUCTION\nSUMMARY OF PROVISIONS\n1. Will provide a rebate of up to 20 percent on state income taxes paid during\ncalendar 1974 (This rebate will derive from the one-time current state\nsurplus which is estimated to total from $800-850 million at the end of\nfiscal 1972-73. The surplus was made possible by major reforms in\nCalifornia's welfare and Medi-Cal programs, and an upturn in the state's\neconomy.)\n2. Will provide a 7 1/2 percent ongoing state income tax cut beginning Jan. 1,\n1974 and thereafter.\n3. Will constitutionally limit and gradually reduce the percentage of total\npersonal income in California which the state can take in taxes during the\nnext 15 years. The state now takes approximately 8.75 percent of California's\ntotal personal income in taxes and fees. The limit will gradually reduce, by\none tenth of one percent per year, the percentage of total personal income\nwhich the state can take from the people, until it reaches about 7.15 percent\nin 1989.\n4. The tax revenue limitation will provide adequate safeguards to assure that\nthe state can cope with emergencies, natural disasters and recessions should\nthey occur in the years ahead.\nTo meet such unanticipated emergency situations, the legislature will be\nauthorized to create an emergency fund of up to two-tenths of one percent\nof the total personal income of the state. In the event of such an emergency,\nas declared by the governor, the emergency fund may be appropriated to meet\nsuch needs, and in the event the emergency fund proves insufficient, the\ntax surplus fund may be utilized, or a special tax may be imposed by the\nlegislature and the governor for a period not to exceed two years. Continua-\ntion of that tax, beyond the period of up to two years must be authorized\nby a majority vote of the people, at a statewide election.\n5. The proposed constitutional amendment will prevent the state from shifting\ncosts to local government for state mandated programs. It requires that\n\"no new programs or increase in the level of service under an existing\nprogram shall be mandated to local entities or to school districts by the\nstate until an appropriation has been made to pay to the local entities\nor school districts the cost of the mandated program or service.\"\n6. The proposal also requires that \"if the legislature enacts a specific\nproperty tax relief measure funded by state tax revenues or if, by\norder of any court, the costs of the program are transferred from local\nentities or school districts to the state, the state tax revenue limit\nmay be increased, provided the maximum property tax rates of affected local\nentities, or the then existing tax rate of affected school districts, are\ncommensurately decreased.\"\n- 2 -\n7. The proposal sets the \"maximum property tax rates of each local entity\" at\nthose rates \"levied for fiscal year 1971-72 or for fiscal 1972-73, which-\never is higher. If\n8. The proposal will enable the legislature to alter the, state's tax structure as\nit may see fit in the years ahead so long as the overall tax structure remains\nbelow the revenue limit in any given year.\n9. The proposal will abolish the state income tax in the future for any family\nearning less than $8000 per year (adjusted gross income) and for any individual\nwith an adjusted gross income of less than $4000 per year.\n10. Governor Reagan's proposal will provide a cumulative tax savings to the people\nof California of $118 billion during the next 15 years, even though the limit\nwill enable California's state budget to triple during the same period of time.\n11. The proposal will provide an estimated $41.5 billion to pay for new programs\nnot now in existence during the next 15 years - above and beyond meeting\nthe fiscal requirements of current programs, including allowance for inflation\nand growth during the same period.\n12. Without the tax revenue limit, it is estimated that the state budget will\nquintuple by 1989, reaching $47 billion in that year. With the limit in effect,\nthe budget will be held to $27 billion in 1989.\n13. Projections based on past experience show that the state will increase its share\nof state revenues from the current 8.75 percent up to 12.25 percent of California's\ntotal personal income in 1989, if a limit is not written into the state constitu-\ntion by the people. On the other hand, the tax revenue limit proposed by\nGovernor Reagan will enable the percentage to decrease to 7.15 percent in 1989.\n14. Governor Reagan proposed the Constitutional Amendment to the California legislature\nseveral months ago. But, the legislative leadership has made it clear that it will\nnot permit the amendment to go to a vote of the people. (The legislature in\nCalifornia can place state constitutional amendments on the ballot for a\nvote of the people by a two thirds vote of each house). For this reason, an\neffort to place the proposal before a vote of the people by means of the initia-\ntive process is now underway. Petitions are now being circulated throughout\nCalifornia. Some 520,000 valid signatures are required. If the needed\nsignatures are gathered and filed a special statewide election will be called by\nthe governor so the people can decide the issue for themselves later this year.\nGray\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RC LD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nmmediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-6-73\n#301\nActing Governor Ed Reinecke today announced that the following\nbills have been signed:\nAB 520 - Warren\nMakes nonsubstantive amendments to the Business\nChapter 77\nand Professions, Financial, Insurance, Labor,\nUnemployment Insurance, and Welfare and Institutions\nCodes.\nAB 561 - Warren\nMakes nonsubstantive amendments to the Public\nChapter 78\nUtilities, Revenue and Taxation, and Vehicle Codes.\n######\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nImmediate\nSacramento, Californ. 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-7-73\n#302\nAs a result of the heavy smog conditions in Los Angeles, Orange,\nSan Bernardino and Riverside Counties, Governor Ronald Reagan today\nissued the following statement :\n\"Because of the climatic temperature inversion that has persisted\nin the Los Angeles Air Basin for the past three days, with no immediate\nchange in sight, serious air pollution levels have been reached which\nrequire cooperation of all citizens in the area to avoid a more extreme\nsituation.\n\"Therefore, I am urging all citizens and agencies in the area to\nrestrict their use of motor vehicles from all but the most pressing and\nnecessary demands.\n\"I have also directed all state agencies to minimize to the greatest\nextent possible the use of state cars in Los Angeles, Orange, San\nBernardino, and Riverside Counties while the present condition exists.\n\"I am also urging all citizens in the area to curtail their outside\nburning activities.\n\"I cannot overemphasize the need for areawide cooperation in\nhelping to abate this hazard before it becomes crucial.\"\nGovernor Reagan also noted the state Air Resources Board and the\nOffice of Emergency Services, along with the Federal Environmental\nProtection Agency and local air pollution control districts are closely\nmonitoring smog conditions in the air basin and taking all available\nactions to reduce the danger.\n######\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, Californi\n95814\nEd Gray, Press Secret 4Y\n916-445-4571\n6-7-73\n#303\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointment of\nArbuckle farmer Willard E. Stetson to the 44th District Agricultural\nAssociation board of directors. The association operates the Colusa\nCounty Fair.\nStetson, 60, a Republican, replaces Stanley Atran, whose term\nhas expired. He is a retired Colusa County Supervisor and now serves\nas fire commissioner for the Arbuckle College City Fire District. He\nis also a member of the board of directors of the Coluga County Chamber\nof Commerce. He is married and has one grown daughter.\nBoard members serve four year terms and receive necessary expenses.\n#####\nAddress:\nWillard E. Stetson\nR.F.D. Box 104\nArbuckle, California\nGarcia\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, Californ\n95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-7-73\n#304\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointments of\nJohn J. Manassero of Sutter Creek and Harold E. Colburn of Plymouth,\nand the appointment of Janice T. Howard of Plymouth to the 26th District\nAgricultural Association board of directors. The association operates\nthe Amador County Fair.\nBoth Manassero and Colburn have served on the board since May\n2, 1949. Their current terms will expire January 15, 1977. Mrs.\nHoward will fill the unexpired term of Lucian Vaira, of Drytown, who\nresigned. The term extends to January 15, 1975.\nManassero, 64, a Democrat, is a native of Sutter Creek and is a\nformer member of the advisory board of Bank of America. He operates\na local insurance business.\nColburn, 65, a Democrat, has served as board president for many\nyears. He owns and operates drug stores in Plymouth and Ione.\nMrs. Howard, who has been associated with the fair since the\nage of 15, is active in cattle ranching. She is a Democrat.\nBoard members receive necessary expenses.\n####\nAddresses:\nJohn J. Manassero\nJanice T. Howard\nPost Office Box 575\nRoute 1, Box 18\nSutter Creek, California 95685\nPlymouth, California 95669\nHarold E. Colburn\nBox 126\nPlymouth, California 95669\nGarcia\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, Californ\n95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-7-73\n#305\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointments of\nGene C. Harris, of Richvale, and G.W. (Jock) Roney, of Chico, to the\n3rd District Agricultural Association Board of Directors. The\nassociation operates the Silver Dollar Fair in Butte County.\nHarris, 44, a Republican, has served on the board since\nMarch 3, 1969. He is manager of the family firm of Harris & Harris\nwhich operates some 2,500 acres, much of it in rice, in the Richvale\narea. He is a director of the California Farm Bureau and the Richvale\nFlying Farmers.\nRoney, 77, a Democrat, has served on the board since September\n3, 1958. He is a retired farmer.\nBoard members serve four year terms and receive necessary\nexpenses.\n######\nGene C. Harris\nPost Office Box 273\nRichvale, California 95974\nG. W. (Jock) Roney\nRoute 1, Box 464\nChico, California 95926\nGarcia\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR R( LD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-7-73\n#306\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointments of Edwin\nR. McCauley of Salinas, and Loren W. Enoch of Oakland to the Commission\non Peace Officer Standards and Training. The appointments require\nSenate confirmation.\nMcCauley, 55, a Democrat, is Monterey County Administrative\nofficer. He replaces Fred J. Morey, Jr., of Del Mar, whose term\nexpired. A 1941 graduate of the University of Southern Califom ia,\nhe is married and has three children. His appointment will expire\nSeptember 18, 1975.\nEnoch, a 53-year-old Republican, replaces Earl R. Strathman, of\nHayward, who resigned. His term will expire September 18, 1973. A\ngraduate of the University of Southern California, he is presently\nAlameda County administrative officer. From 1961 to 1972, he was\nVentura County executive officer. He is married and has two sons.\nCommission members receive necessary expenses.\n######\nEdwin R. I cCauley\n1014 Crespi Way\nSalinas, California\nLoren W. Enoch\n5727 Balboa Drive\nOakland, California\nGarcia\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RO LD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nImmediate\nSacramento, Californi. 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-8-73\n#307\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced appointments to the nine-\nmember Speech Pathology and Audiology Examining Committee, which was\ncreated during the 1972 legislative session.\nThe bill, SB 796, introduced by Senator James E. Whetmore\n(R-Buena Park) provides for the licensing of speech pathologists and\naudiologists by the committee, and places it under the jurisdiction of\nthe Board of Medical Examiners.\nNamed to the committee were:\nKatharine G. Butler, Ph.D., director of the Speech and Hearing\nCenter and professor of speech pathology and audiology, California State\nUniversity at San Jose;\nA. Chris Hagen, Ph.D., chief, Communication Disorders Service,\nDivision of Neurological Sciences, Rancho Los Amigos Hospital, at Downey;\nEsther L. Herbert, supervisor, Speech and Hearing Special Education\nDivision, Los Angeles Unified School District;\nRichard M. Flower, Ph.D., professor of speech and audiology and vice\nchairman, Department of Otolaryngology, University of California, San\nFrancisco.\nDonald A. Belt, director, audiology and speech pathology, Sunnyvale\nMedical Clinic;\nHenry D. Schmitz, Ph.D., director of audiology, Redlands Medical\nClinic;\nMansfield F. W. Smith, M.D., associate clinical professor, Stanford\nUniversity Medical Center, and associate chief, Division of Otolaryngology,\nSanta Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose.\nJacquelyn W. Green, teacher, Spanish Department, San Francisco City\nCollege;\nCharles K. Paskerian, Jr., president, Flexi-Pac, Inc., Santa Ana.\nThe law provides that committee members shall, by lot, classify\nthemselves so the terms of three members expire Jun 1, 1974; three members,\nJune 1, 1975, and the remaining three members' terms expire Junel, 1976.\nThereafter, all appointees will receive four year terms. No member,\nhowever, may serve more than two consecutive terms.\nMembers receive $28 a day per diem and their necessary expenses.\n# # # # #\nWalthall\nButler, 21400 Arrowhead Lane, Cupertino 95014; Hagen, 548 Mondo Drive,\nLa Habra 90631; Herbert, 8001 Vicksburg Ave., Los Angeles 90045; Flower,\n34 Seventh Avenue, San Francisco 94118; Belt, 186 Alameda de Las Pulgas,\nAtherton 94025; Schmitz, 1630 Henrietta, Redlands 92373; Smith, 20021\nBella Vista Ave., Saratoga; Green, 984 Flying Fish, Foster City 94404;\nPaskerian, 2422 North Fairmont, Santa Ana 92706.\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, Californi 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-8-73\n#308\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today called a special election for\nSeptember 4, 1973 to fill the 14th Assembly District seat of the late\nAssemblyman Robert W. Crown of Alameda.\nCrown died of injuries suffered May 20 when struck by an\nautomobile while jogging in Alameda.\nThe primary election will be held August 7. The September 4\nelection will be held if no candidate receives more than 50 percent of\nthe primary vote.\n#####\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, Californi 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-8-73\n#309\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today filled two vacancies on the\nCalifornia Regional Water Quality Control Board.\nAppointed to four-year terms were, John C. Mabee of San Diego,\nnamed to the Board's San Diego Region; and, Peter M. Tripp of Oakland,\nwho was appointed to the Board's San Francisco Bay Region. Both are\nRepublicans.\nMabee, 51, fills the vacancy created by the resignation of\nCornelius J. Johnson of San Marcos. A former part owner of the San Diego\nChargers professional football team, Mabee is a member of the San Diego\nCounty Environmental Advisory Board. He is the founder and president\nof the Big Bear Markets.\nTripp, 62, replaces Anthony R. Turturici of San Jose. Turturici\nhas resigned. The senior member of the Oakland Board of Port\nCommissioners, Tripp has served three terms as Commission president.\nHe is the owner of the Peter Tripp Insurance Agency.\nHe is a former vice mayor and member of the Oakland City Council.\nBoard members receive their necessary expenses when on official\nbusiness.\n#####\nAddresses:\nJohn C. Mabee\nPeter M. Tripp\n4545 Yerba Santa Drive\n5878 Moraga Avenue\nSan Diego 92115\nOakland 94611\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, Californ\n95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-8-73\n#310\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointment of\nMrs. Daniel F. (Elizabeth) Deedy of Ross as a member of the Board of\nGovernors of California Community Colleges, and reappointed two members.\nReappointed to four-year terms were King E. Durkee of San Diego,\nand William A. Dillard of Brawley. They are Republicans.\nAll three appointments require two-thirds consent of the state\nSenate.\nMrs. Deedy is a former member and four term president of the Marin\nJunior College District. She replaces Herbert T. Stroschein, D.D.S.,\nof Santa Ana. Stroschein resigned and his term has expired.\nShe served five years and was twice elected president of the board\nof the Mill Valley Elementary School District, and twice elected chairman\nof the junior college section and statewide chairman of the Junior\nCollege Trustees of the California School Boards Association.\nMrs. Deedy, a Republican, is a graduate of Queens College, Charlotte,\nNorth Carolina, and received her Masters Degree in psychology from the\nUniversity of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. She was assistant to the\ndean of women and director of residents at the University of Pennsylvania\nfrom 1936-40.\nDurkee, 54, director of education for the Copley Press, was first\nappointed to the Board by Governor Reagan July 14, 1970. He has served\nas executive editor, managing editor and executive news editor of the\nSan Diego Union. He also has been active in the American Newspaper\nPublishers Association, the Graduate Department of Journalism at the\nUniversity of California at Los Angeles, the Pacific Forum, the Bayside\nSettlement House, Sigma Delta Chi, the Association for Education in\nJournalism and the San Diego Symphony. He has also been a journalism\ninstructor at San Diego State College and the University of Utah.\nDillard, 53, an Imperial County farmer, is a past president of the\nBoard of Trustees of the Brawley School District, and was a three-term\npresident of the Imperial County School Boards Association. He was\nfirst appointed to the Board in 1968 by Governor Reagan.\nBoard members receive their necessary expenses.\n######\nAddresses:\nWalthall\nKing E. Durkee\nElizabeth M. Deedy\nWilliam A. Dillard\n2435 Soderblum Avenue\nOne Garden Road\n480 South Rio Vista\nSan Diego 92122\nRoss 94957\nBrawley, California\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR ROWALD REAGAN\nRELEASE.\nImmediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-8-73\n#311\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the following bills have\nbeen signed:\nAB 89 - Bagley\nContinues the increase from $80 to $120 per month\nChapter 75\nafter June 1, 1973, in the maximum amount payable\nfor each child under foster care programs. The\nbill also eliminates the requirement that counties\nbe reimbursed on a quarterly basis in arrears on\ncertain increases in aid grants made by the 1972\nlegislature.\nAB 413 - Lewis\nSpecifies that a candidate for a nonpartisan offic\nChapter 79\nat a primary election who receives a majority vote\nis elected, and that where two or more candidates\nare to be elected to a nonpartisan office and a\ngreater number of candidates receive a majority\nthan the number to be elected, those candidates\nshall be elected who secure the highest votes of\nthose receiving such majority, and equal in number\nto the number to be elected. The bill restores\nlanguage formerly found in Article II, Section\n2-3/4 of the Constitution. That section was\nrepealed by Proposition 7.\nAB 915 - MacDonald\nProvides that the children's treatment center\nChapter 80\nat Camarillo State Hospital shall be known as the\nNorbert I. Rieger Children's Treatment Center.\n#####\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nSacramento, Californ\n95814\nMEMO TO T\nPRESS\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-8-73\n#312\nGOVERNOR'S SCHEDULE\nJune 11, 1973\nthrough\nJune 17, 1973\nMonday, June 11\nNo public appointments scheduled\nOvernight - Sacramento\nTuesday, June 12\nNoon\nCSEA Institute on Government, Woodlake Inn.\nRemarks.\n4:30 p.m.\nPresentation by Sacramento Chapter, Sons of the\nAmerican Revolution, of flags in honor of Flag Day,\ngovernor's office.\nOvernight - Sacramento\nWednesday, June 13\nNoon\nContra Cost Taxpayers' Association Luncheon,\nBoundary Oak Restaurant, Walnut Creek. Speech.\n7:00 p.m.\nJFK High School Graduation, Tak Fudenna Stadium,\nFremont. Speech.\nOvernight - Sacramento\nThursday, June 14\nNoon\nFlag Day Ceremony, West Steps of Capitol, sponsored\nby the Sacramento United Committee for Flag Day.\nOvernight - San Francisco\nFriday, June 15\na.m.\nMeeting of the University of California Board of\nRegents, University Extension Center, San Francisco.\n6:00 p.m.\nReopening of the old San Francisco Mint, 5th and\nMission Streets, with Mrs. Mary Brooks, Director\nof the United States Mint.\nOvernight - Los Angeles\nSaturday, June 16\nNo public appointments scheduled\nOvernight - Los Angeles\nSunday, June 17\nNo public appointments scheduled\nOvernight - Los Angeles\n# # # # #\nGray\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, Californ\n95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-12-73\n#313\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today released the text of a recent letter\nto Assemblyman Robert G. Beverly pertaining to reapportionment:\n\"Since it is my understanding that you, Assemblyman Murphy, and\nothers among the Republicans in the Assembly, wish to have a more\nspecific indication of my views on AB 164, as it has been represented,\nI have prepared a list of districts which seem to be most contrived and\nin which compactness and community of interest are lost.\n\"I know you have stated that incumbency is a valid consideration.\nIt is true that incumbency cannot help but be considered when those\naffected set the lines. But while that is true, it is also true that\nthe people whom we all serve should have consideration. To utterly\ndestroy community interest to gain partisan advantages in even one\ndistrict is wrong, obviously.\n\"I had hoped that a suitable compromise between incumbency and\ncommunity considerations might be reached. Thus far, at least 18\ndistricts in AB 164 remain outside that formula. They are as follows:\n1. 2nd A.D. - a long finger reaches up the coast to include Eurek\n2.\n9th A.D. - takes parts of 3 counties.\n3. 18th A.D. and 19th A.D. - these districts are contrived for no\nvalid reason and are a gross example of unnecessary gerrymandering.\n4. 23rd A.D. - Reaching from the borders of Orange County, through\nSan Bernardino County, through Kern County to San Luis Obispo and Santa\nBarbara Counties.\n5. 26th A.D. and 27th A.D. - a long appendage reaches southeast\nalong the major highway of the area.\n6. 29th A.D. - runs through 5 counties from Taft to San Jose.\n7. 33rd A.D. - this district includes mountain and valley areas\nwhich result in an odd configuration.\n8. The map for Los Angeles is so incongruous as to make it\ndifficult to comment on individual districts. However, the 49th A.D.\nwill serve as an example. The district loops around the 50th A.D. with\nonly a narrow corridor linking the major sections of the district.\n9. 58th A.D. - runs from Oceanside to Garden Grove.\n10. 61st A.D. - runs from Playa del Rey to Hollywood.\n11. 67th A.D. - runs from Anaheim to Lake Elsinore and the San\nDiego County line.\n12. 69th A.D. - possibly the worst example of deliberate gerry-\nmandering in political history, having a distorting effect on surrounding\ndistricts.\n13. 76th, 78th, 79th, and 80th A.D.s - these San Diego County\ndistricts are all examples of the art of gerrymander and cannot be\njustified on rational grounds. The City of La Mesa with less than\n40,000 population has been divided among the above four districts.\n\"If it is possible to resolve the district problems outlined above,\nI believe the chances of court approval of legislative reapportionment\nwould be improved. As you continue your negotiations with the majority\nparty in the Assembly, you and all other Republican members have my\nassurance that I will stand with you to prevent the gross and\nindefensible gerrymander of Assembly districts. We are joined in this\nstand by our party, by the cities, counties, and communities affected,\nby newspapers and broadcasting stations throughout California, and by\nthe public.\"\n#####\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE\nImmediate\nSacramento, Californi 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-12-73\n#314\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced he has lifted the restriction\non use of state cars which he ordered last week in Los Angeles, Orange,\nRiverside and San Bernardino Counties because of severe smog conditions.\n\"Although high pollution readings in Riverside and San Bernardino\nCounties have passed, Governor Reagan said, \"there is a long, hot\nsummer ahead. I urge all citizens in the South Coast Air Basin to think\nof their neighbors throughout the area and avoid making unnecessary\nautomobile trips.\n\"During last week's alert, smog levels remained below the danger\npoint in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. However, the heavy\nconcentration of motor vehicles in those counties contributed to the\nproblem in Riverside and San Bernardino.\n\"There is no question that the voluntary reduction of unnecessary\nautomobile trips during severe smog conditions can help the entire four\ncounty area.\"\n######\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, Califor a 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-13-73\n#315\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the following bills have\nbeen signed:\nAB 190 - Papan\nProhibits any person, except law enforcement personnel\nChapter 87\nwhen on duty, operating any motor vehicle from wearing\nany headset covering, or any earplugs in, both ears.\nAB 323 - Townsend\nProhibits rental of any vehicle, rather than small\nChapter 88\ntrailers or trailer coaches, for 30 days or less unless\nall equipment required by the Vehicle Code has been\nprovided or offered to the lessee for his use.\nAB\n399\n-\nGonsalves Prohibits any person from operating any privately\nChapter 89\nowned armored car, rather than any armored car, unless\na license to operate such car has first been obtained\nfrom the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol\nA B 716 - Powers\nCorrects an erroneous cross-reference in a Public\nChapter 90\nUtilitites Code provision relating to highway carriers.\nSB 114 - Berryhill Corrects an erroneous cross-reference in a Health\nChapter 81\nand Safety Code provision relating to community\nfacilities.\nSB 244 - Walsh\nLimits the application of decreased speed limits for\nChapter 82\ntrucks on downgrades to vehicles having a manufacturer!\ngross vehicle weight rating in excess of 10,000 pounds\nSB 280 - Grunsky\nAuthorizes cities, counties and districts to provide,\nChapter 83\nin contracts for public projects, penalty clauses for\nlate completion and also bonus clauses for early\ncompletion.\nSB 318 - Dills\nPermits certain garbage disposal districts with\nChapter 84\nmultiyear contracts, under specified conditions,\nto levy a property tax rate in excess of the base\nmaximum permissible rate.\nSB 329 - Way\nAuthorizes the Director of Food and Agriculture to\nChapter 85\npermit for one year, by regulation, an alternative\nsampling procedure, and maturity and quality standards\nfor canning tomatoes.\nSB 478 - Marks\nRemoves the provision that unemployment disability\nChapter 86\ncompensation benefits may be reduced by payments\nreceived under the maritime doctrine of maintenance\nand cure, and that payments received under the\nmaritime doctrine of maintenance and cure can be used\nin computing wages for the purposes of qualifying\nfor unemployment.\n#########\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, California 5814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-13-73\n#316\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today said a Senate Committee's failure to\nact on his constitutional amendment to limit and reduce taxes at\na\ncommittee meeting this afternoon \"makes a mockery of the constitutional\nprocess which provides that the people should be able to decide for\nthemselves at the ballot box major issues affecting their future.\"\nHe termed the failure \"a deliberate affront to the people of\nCalifornia who, themselves, wrote the provision into the Constitution.\n\"To deny Californians the opportunity to vote on this program\namounts to a total distrust of the people and completely vindicates\nour efforts to assure that the decision will be made through the\npetition\ninitiative/process.'\nFive of the nine votes on the committee were required to send the\nconstitutional amendment to the Senate Finance Committee. The four\nRepublican members of the committee voted to pass the measure out,\n\"for which they should be highly commended,\" he said. \"One Democratic\nmember at least had the courage to vote no,\" he added. The four\nremaining Democrats on the committee either failed to show up or chose\nto abstain.\n\"Despite the fact that the legislature placed eleven constitutional\namendments on the statewide ballot last year so the people could vote\non them, this key committee has consciously and deliberately sabotaged\nthe right of the people to decide this important issue. Is it any wonder\nthen that many of our citizens have lost faith in the legislature's\nability to deal effectively with the people's business?\n\"Such abdication of responsibility is not only shamefully arrogant,\nit is a blatant abuse of power based on the assumption that a handful of\nlegislators knows better than the people themselves what is good for\nCalifornia.\nI recognize that some of the members of this committee were merely\nacting on orders from the legislative leadership of the majority party in\ndenying the people the right to vote on the issue. But, it is this/kind very\nof irresponsible partisanship which has made tax relief so difficult to\nachieve,\" he said.\nGovernor Reagan noted that there is still time to qualify the citizen\ninitiative for a special statewide election this fall.\nHe urged citizens to get behind the initiative so that they can\nhave the opportunity to limit and reduce the proportion of their earnings\nwhich the state can take in taxes in the years ahead.\nHe said thousands of Californians will be seeking signatures at\nshopping centers throughout the state this weekend in an effort to\nplace the issue before the people at a special election November 6.\n# # #\nGray\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RO LD REAGAN\nMEMO\nTHE PRESS\nSacramento, Californi 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-14-73\n#317\nTax\nletter\nThe attached has been received by Governor Reagan from Roger A.\nFreeman of the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at\nStanford.\nFreeman, a distinguished tax expert and senior fellow at the\nHoover Institution since 1962, is the author of numerous books and\narticles in the field of public finance. His latest book, \"Tax\nLoopholes,\" has just been published.\nOther books include: \"Federal Aid to Education--Boon or Bane?;\"\n\"School Needs in the Decade Ahead;\" \"Taxes for Schools;\" \"Crisis in\nCollege Finance?;\" and \"Socialism and Private Enterprise in Equatorial\nAsia.\"\nPreviously he served as a special assistant to the governor of\nWashington (1950-55) ; White House assistant to President Eisenhower\n(1955-56) ; was fiscal advisor to the government of Bolivia (1957) ;\nserved as vice president of the Institute of Social Science Research in\nWashington (1957-60) ; was research director of the Institute of Studies\nin Federalism, Claremont Men's College, California (1960-62).\nHe served as a special assistant to President Nixon while on leave\nfrom the Hoover Institution from 1967-70; was co-chairman of the state\nand local government advisory committee of the U.S. Bureau of the\nCensus, 1952-56; served as a consultant in school finance, White House\nConference on Education, 1955; and was research advisor to the education\ncommittee of the U.S. Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1954-55.\nHe served as chairman of the committee on finance and public\neducation for the National Tax Foundation from 1957-60 and was on the\nassociation's executive committee from 1961-64; and was a member of\nthe advisory board of the Tax Institute of America from 1955-61.\nHe is a member of the American Economic Association and the American\nSociety of Public Administration.\nIn 1959 he was the recipient of the distinguished research award\nof the Governmental Research Association and was the winner of the\nGeorge Washington Honor Medal Award of Freedoms Foundation at Valley\nForge in 1967.\nHe also served as an advisor to Governor Reagan's tax reduction\ntask force late last year and early this year.\nHe has known A. Alan Post professionally since 1950.\nAlso attached is an analysis by Wesley H. Hillendahl, vice president,\ndirector of business research, Bank of Hawaii, which stresses the per-\ncentage of the people's income which is being consumed by government\nspending in the United States.\n# # #\nGray\nHOOVER INSTITUTION\nON WAR, REVOLUTION AND PEACE\nStanford, California 94305\n(415) 321-2300\nJune 8, 1973\nDear Governor:\nIn reviewing the release of May 2 of the Governor's Task Force on Tax Reduction,\ncommenting on the Legislative Analyst's criticism of your tax reduction plan, I\nam amazed, dismayed, and somewhat saddened by the nature of the Analyst's\ncriticism. Having known Alan Post for well over twenty years and having always\nhad the highest regard for his professional knowledge and judgment, I am at a\nloss to understand what caused him to compile such unjustified, carping, far-\nfetched, factually inaccurate and often incorrect statements.\nTo be sure, Mr. Post's statement that taxes and government expenditures would\nnow be lower had an initiative such as you now propose been adopted in 1966 is\nprobably correct. To control the magnitude of taxing and spending and its growth\ntendency is, after all, the purpose of the action. But the claim that this would\nmean \"increases in local property and sales taxes\" and \"eliminate all of the exist-\ning direct property tax relief program\" is purely imaginary.\nMany of the Analyst's statements in his release of April 30 strike me as lacking\nmerit. Some of them must be called nitpicking because they concern minor and un-\nimportant items. For example, the criticism in pt. #1 to pt. #3 of the inclusion\nof such insignificant items in revenues as admissions to university football games.\nThe fact is that the U.S. Bureau of the Census includes all of the ten listed items\nas revenues in its annual report on Government Finances in\nand has used those\ndefinitions and concepts now consistently for over twenty years. There is not a\nvery clear line of distinction between taxes and revenues in general usage; for ex-\nample, the Bureau of the Census treats receipts from employment taxes (unem-\nployment and social security taxes) as \"insurance trust revenues\" (and not as taxes)\nwhile many other fiscal analysts classify those receipts as taxes (which legally they\nare). Census treats employee retirement contributions in the same manner as\nsocial security contributions (i.e., as trust fund contributions). Mr. Post does\nnot object to social security contributions being treated as taxes, but for some rea-\nson would exclude employee contributions. (I can see no difference between the\ntwo; they both are imposed by law and serve the same purpose.)\n- 2 -\nThese are really technical details which are of little interest or significance to the\npublic. The essential fact is that all of the amounts included in the Governor's\ncomputation are governmental revenues and ought to be considered when measuring\nthe size of government.\nNor does the Analyst's objection to the use of Personal Income rather than Net\nNational Product have much validity. In the end only people pay taxes -- or con-\ntribute similar \"revenues\" to government not legal abstractions or properties\nas such and it is perfectly all ri ght to use Personal Income as a measuring stick --\nwhich does not deprive anyone else from using some other measure, provided that\nit is available (which Net National Product on a state-by-state basis is not). In its\nannual report Governmental Finances in\nthe U.S. Bureau of the Census relates\nstate and local government revenues and expenditures to personal income.\nMoreover, what counts in the end is not whether total governmental revenues or\nexpenditures now equal 44% of Personal Income (or any other concept such as\nNational Income or Net National Product which are computed only on a national\nbasis) or 43% or 42% but the fact that this is a very high share of the income pro-\nduced by the people and that it has been increasing sharply, particularly at state and\nlocal levels.\nThe U.S. Bureau of the Census shows all governmental revenues (federal-state-\nlocal) nationally to equal 41.1% of personal income. It also shows state and local\ngovernment general revenues in California to be 20.9% of personal income, compared\nwith a national average of 18.1%. (The Bureau does not compute combined federal-\nstate-local revenues for each state.) This suggests that following the Census\nBureau's methods - federal, state and local government revenues in California\nequal at least 44% of personal income.\nOn the whole, the comments which the Governor's Task Force prepared in response\nto the Legislative Analyst's criticism appear to me to be well-reasoned, justified\nand correct. I hope that Mr. Post will take them to heart and give in the future more\ncareful and objective professional consideration to the facts before issuing such ill -\ntempered and slanted statements as he did in this case.\nSincerely yours,\nRoger A. Freeman\nBank of Hawaii-April, 1973\nBIG GOVERNME T'S DESTRUCTION OF THE AM\nICAN ECONOMY\n- THE CONSEQUENCES AND THE CHOICES\nBy Wesley H. Hillendahl\nVice President, Director of Business Research\nBank of Hawaii\nA CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE\nventionally related to Gross National Product (GNP)\nIMPACT OF BURGEONING GOVERNMENT\nHowever, this ratio tends to mask the growth of govern-\nment because GNP includes government spending as\nThe issues of higher prices, higher taxes, and spiraling\none of its components and therefore is not useful in\ngovernment spending are on every thoughtful person's\nthis analysis.\nmind. It is generaliy understood in a vague way that\nTREND OF EXPANDING COST OF GOVERNMENT\nthe problems of inflation, expanding credit demands and\nFollowing the great depression when combined gov-\nhigh interest rates are related to big government. Yet\nernment spending' rose to between 20 and 23 percent\nthe notion is prevalent, from welfare recipients to edu-\nof personal income, World War II briefly required a level\ncators to high level businessmen, that somehow funds\nof government spending amounting to more than 62 per-\nfrom Washington are free for the asking - no strings\ncent of personal income, accompanied by accute infla-\nattached - and each is obliged to compete for funds\ntion of prices. By 1947, government spending returned\nwhich otherwise will be granted elsewhere.\nto about 23 percent. Subsequently, over the years gov-\nOne may properly ask, just how critical are the levels\nernment spending has gradually taken an increasing\nof taxation and government spending today? Can govern-\nshare of personal income. Spending reached 35.8 per-\nment overhead reach the point where it endangers eco-\ncent in 1960, and 41.8 percent in 1970. Presently, gov-\nnomic stability? Further, did the urgency in the Presi-\nernment absorbs 43.5 percent of personal income, twice\ndent's recent message to the people of the United States\nthe share 40 years ago.\nreflect a concern about a resurgence of inflation as a\n1950-1960: A REFERENCE PERIOD\nconsequence of increased government spending, or did\nAdjustments of the highly inflationary World War\nit reflect a deeper concern related to a more profound\nII period having been accomplished, business became\nissue: namely, the survival of the United States economy?\nrelatively stable and profitable during the decade\nFor many decades the combined spending by local,\nbetween 1950 and 1960. Being one of the relatively\nstate and federal governments has been creeping up as\nmore stable periods of this century, this period was se-\na share of the income of the private economy. In fact,\nlected as a basis for comparison with subsequent periods.\nthe trend has been in effect for such a long time that\nIt was characterized as follows: new capital for consumer\nit is largely taken for granted.\nand business investment was adequate, interest rates\nOur purpose here is to attempt first to establish a\nwere reasonable. As an example, yields of AAA bonds\nrelationship between the size of governments in the\nwere in the 3 to 4 percent range. During this period,\nUnited States and the requirement for accelerating infla-\ntion, more or less sustained high interest rates, and\nFIGURE 1\nchronic problems in the credit markets; second, to\nemploy this relationship as a basis for evaluating the\nMEASURES OF LIQUIDITY\nPERCENT\nRATIO\nfuture consequences if government continues to take an\nincreasing share of private sector revenues.\n60\nGOVERNMENT CAN ONLY SPEND THAT WHICH IT FIRST TAKES\n©CORPORATIONS\nFROM PEOPLE\n50\nIn this analysis, personal income is used as a basic\nmeasure of the private sector of the economy. The con-\n40\ncept of personal income is useful because all taxes and\nsources of government income are ultimately paid by\n30\n3:1\npeople out of personal income. For example, all cor-\nporate taxes must become part of the purchase price\n©COMMERCIAL BANKS\nof consumer products. Taxes on intermediate products\n20\n2:1\nwhich are consumed by companies must in turn be\nincluded in the price of the final product or service for\n3 CONSUMERS\n10\n(RIGHT SCALE)\n1:1\nwhich the consumer ultimately pays. Also, all direct ser-\n1\nCASH ASSETS AS A PERCENTAGE OF CURRENT LIABILITIES\nvices and products provided bv government-owned\nGOVT. SECURITIES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL BANK CREDIT\nRATIO OF DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME TO CONSUMER DEBT\nactivities are ultimately paid out of personal income.\n0\n0\nSo all government revenues must ultimately be paid by\n1950\n55\n83,\n65\n70\n'72\npeople.\nGovernment spending as used here includes the sum of all levels\nIn passing we note that government spending is con-\nof government including federal, state and local.\nI\nBank of 1973\nthe money supply M₂ (defined by r\ney in circulation,\nBecause the relatic\nip between the rate of expansion\nand demand and savings deposits 5 banks) expanded\nof the money supp., and wages and prices is well es-\nat about 3½ to 4 percent annually. This constitutes a\ntablished, it followed that increases in the levels of both\nnoninflationary growth of the money supply, as it paced\nwages and prices, also began to accelerate. However,\nthe growth in real personal income.\nbecause prices paced the rise in income, the vast increase\n(It appears that the growth of real personal income in\nin average family incomes between 1965 and 1970 pro-\nthe United States has averaged about 4 percent for well\nluced no increase in real income. (See Figure 2.) The\nover a century.) However, the deterioration of liquidity\nexpansion of money reached a peak of over 10 percent,\n(retained cash) in the economy, including business,\nand as an illustration of climbing interest rates, bond\nfinancial institutions, and individuals, indicated trouble\nyields soared from the previous 4 to 5 percent level\nahead. (See Figure 1.) While liquidity may have been\nto well over 8 percent.\nsomewhat excessive during 1950 as a result of savings\nApparently a critical point had been reached in 1965.\naccumulated during the war, liquidity was clearly de-\nThe internal liquidity generated by individuals and busi-\nteriorating by 1960. This warning signal reflected in\nness was noilonger adequate to supply the credit require-\npart the fact that government spending was becoming\nments of the nation. While this condition had been\na larger share of the total economy and that govern-\nimposed temporarily during wars and previous periods\nment was draining off liquidity through taxation. The\nof tight money, it now extended continuously even\nburden of the federal, state and local governments\nthrough periods of monetary ease. By 1970, the burden\nrose from about 28 percent to about 35 percent of per-\nof the government reached 42 percent of personal\nsonal income during that decade.\nincome. Over the years, government spending at all\nlevels nationally had been expanding at a rate of about\n1960-1965: MILDLY INFLATIONARY\n11 percent per year as compared to personal income\nThen during the first half of the 1960 decade, inflation\nwhich was increasing at a little over 8 percent. The gap\nbegan to creep up. Capital remained generally adequate,\nbetween personal income and government overhead\nbut as inflation crept up, interest rates also began to\ncontinued to close and the consequent loss of liquidity\nrise in anticipation of additional inflation. For example,\nin the system forced more and more people into the\nAAA bond yields rose to between 4 and 5 percent as\ncredit markets. In Figure 3, the hatched area between\ncompared to the previous 3 to 4 percent level. The burden\nthe lines of the demand for new capital by industry and\nof government by 1965 had risen to about 37 percent\nthe availability of internal capital through cash flow, illus-\nof personal income and the money supply, M2, was being\ntrates the extent of the credit shortage which began in\nexpanded at about 6 percent annually. The liquidity pic-\n1965. This shortage provided the foundation for the high\nture continued to deteriorate. The government burden\ninterest rates which have been in effect ever since.\nhaving continued to increase, necessary credit expansion\nFIGURE 3\nwas becoming increasingly inflationary.\nTOTAL DEMAND FOR NEW CREDIT AND\n1965: A CRITICAL YEAR\nDuring the second half of the 1960 decade, inflation\nCORPORATE FUNDING IN THE U.S.\nof the money supply (M2) picked up additional steam.\n$ BILLIONS\nFIGURE 2\n350\nEFFECTS OF INFLATION\nON FAMILY INCOME IN THE U.S.\n300\nTOTAL DEMAND FOR'\nDOLLARS\n(worker with three dependents)\nNEW CREDIT\n120\n250\n110\n200\nAverage spendable\n100\nweekly earnings in\n150\ncurrent dellars.\nTOTAL CAPITAL?\n90\nINVESTMENT\n100\n80\nAverage spendable\n50\nAVAILABLE\n70\nweekly earnings in\nINTERNAL FUNDS\nconstant 1950 dollars.\n0\n0\n1960\n1965\n1970\n1975\n1980\n1960\n'62\n'64\n99,\n'68\n'70\n'72\nIFUNDS RAISE BY NOMEINANCIAL SECTORS IN US CREDIT MARKETS\n2PURCHASES OF PHYSICAL ASSETS BY NONFARM NONFINANCIAL CORPORATIONS\n2\nBank of Hawaii-April. 1973\nrequired to support $1,000 of person\nicome may reach\nFIGURE 6\n$200, depending on the phase of the business cycle.³\nThe basic relationship between credit expansion and\nGROWTH OF MONEY* RELATED TO GOVERNMENT\ngovernment burden shown in Figure 5 appears to be\nBURDEN ON PERSONAL INCOME\nthe underlying cause of the inflationary monetary condi-\nPER CENT\n34\ntions which historically has been associated with big\nANNUAL CROWTH OF\ngovernment.\nMONEY AND CREDIT\n7.\n30\nFIGURE 5\nNEW CREDIT RELATED TO GOVERNMENT\n26\nSPENDING IN THE U.S.\n22\n% 35\nHYPER-INFLATIONARY\nTOTAL CREDIT DEMAND\nAS SHARE OF PERSONNEL INCOME\n'45\n18\n30\n14\n7071 SEPECTARY EASE: 1980\n1985\n'44\nBUSINESS CYCLE CYCLE CORTRACTION 1980\nINFLATIONARY\n25\n72\n67\n10\n68\nCONSTRAINT:\n8\n20\nBUSINESS\n3\n'63\n72\n'62\n6\n66\n1973?\n71\n61\nTHE\n4\n39\n1950\n69\n1960\n15\n65\n2\n35\n67\nNON-INFLATIONARY\n70\n0\n38\n53\n10\n20\n30\n40\n50\n60\n70\n69\n'62\nTOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING AS SHARE OF\n10\n68\nToll\nPERSONAL INCOME\n60\n*M2 MONEY IN CIRCULATION PLUS DEMAND AND SAVINGS DEPOSITS IN BANKS\n36\n57\n5\ncial panics in the United States around the turn of the\ncentury. The point is, that once government grows to\na certain point with relation to the size of private econ-\n0\nomy, inflation is unavoidably necessary and must pro-\n30\n40\n50\n60\n70%\nceed at an accelerating rate as government continues\nTOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING AS SHARE\nOF PERSONAL INCOME\nto grow.\nIn the present environment, what was considered\nThis relationship also accounts for an apparent para-\na highly expansionary rate before 1965, is now becoming\ndox which exists during periods of accelerating inflation\nrestrictive, showing that the liquidity shortage is becom-\n- the faster the money supply is expanded the less\ning more acute. A higher rate of credit expansion is\nmoney is available to conduct private business.\nbecoming necessary to maintain the economy. A critical\nCREDIT EXPANSION GENERATES MONETARY INFLATION\ntransition occurred in 1965 from a relatively noninfla-\nThe basic relationship is that as government grows\ntionary environment to one in which accelerating credit\nbeyond the point where it absorbs more than about 20\nexpansion is necessary to offset the drain of the total\npercent to 25 percent of personal income, the growth\ngovernment overhead on the private economy. Nation-\nof the nation's money supply must be accelerated to\nally, credit requirements have doubled over the last\ninflationary rates. (See Figure 6.) Then, as the size of\ndecade as a consequence of diminishing liquidity, and\ngovernment goes from 40 percent to 50 percent or more\nmay be expected to accelerate in the future. (See Fig-\nof personal income, the rate of expansion of money must\nure 3.)\nbecome hyperinflationary to accommodate the spiral-\ning credit requirements of the economy.\nMONETARY INFLATION CAUSES WAGES AND PRICES TO RISE\nThis is not to say that turbulence in the credit markets\nRapid expansion of credit and the accompanying\nand inflation cannot be engineered at any time, either\nmonetary expansion must always result in comparably\nby the monetary authorities under a central banking sys-\nrapid increases in wages and prices. The close correlation\ntem, e.g., Germany after World War II, or by large fi-\nbetween inflating a nation's money supply and increases\nnancial interests in a less centralized system, e.g., finan-\nin prices is demonstrated by the following statistics:4\nAs Figure 5 shows, credit requirements are somewhat greater in pro-\n4 Fifteen year compound growth rates compiled by Beryl Spinkel,\nportion to personal income during business cyc expansion than during\nEconomist for Harris Trust and Savings Bank, presented to the Canadian\nbusiness cycle contractions, and therefore must be expressed as a\nStanding Senate Committee on National Finance, Ottawa, Canada,\nrange.\nJune 10, 1971.\n4\nBank of Mawan-April, 1973\nMONEY SUPPLY AND PR'\nINCREASES\nFIGURE 7\nMoney Supply/Real\nConsumer\nA CENTURY OF GROWTH\nGross National\nPrice\nProduction\nIndox\nIN UNITED STATES MONEY SUPPLY\n(Percent)\n(Percent)\nBrazil\n35.3\n37.9\nBILLIONS\n$ BILLIONS\n10,000\n10,000\nChile\n29.0\n27.6\n200%\nColombia\n11.2\n10.4\n1,000\nTHE\n1,000\nPeru\n7.7\n9.0\nMexico\n3.8\n3.6\nJapan\n4.9\n4.3\n100\n100\nFrance\n4.8\n4.9\n85%\nCanada\n2.2\n2.2\n0\n0\nA high rate of increase in prices always accompanies\na high rate of monetary inflation. Only when the rate\n1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990\nof monetary expansion is held in check are prices stable.\nHence, only by alleviating those conditions which\nGOVERNMENT SPENDING RELATED\nrequire high rates of monetary expansion can a stable\nTO PERSONAL INCOME IN THE UNITED STATES\nRatio:\nprice structure be restored in the United States.\nTotal\nTotal\nGovernment\nPersonal\nGovernment\nSpending/\nIncome\nSpending'\nPersonal Income\nYear\n($ Billion)\n($ Billion)\n(Percent)\nTHE OUTLOOK\n1975\n1,185\n554\n47\nExtending the trends of the last several decades into\n1980\n1,758\n925\n53\nthe future, we may expect that by about 1978, govern-\n1985\n2,607\n1,545\n59\nment burden will pass through the point representing\n1990\n3,866\n2,600\n67\n50 percent of personal income and to 60 percent and\n1\nCombined total of federal, state, and local governments.\nabove before 1990 as shown at right:\nProjected on the basis of 1973 dollars and present growth trends.\nFIGURE 8\n$BILLIONS\n$ BILLIONS\n10,000\n10,000\n-\nTRENDS IN\n(A) PERSONAL INCOME\nPERSONAL INCOME\n1,000\n1,000\nECONOMIC\nAND\n61%\nCOLLAPSE\n59%\n?\nAFTER TAX\nGOVERNMENT SPENDING\nPERSONAL INCOME (B)\n>-8'01\nIN\n100\nTHE UNITED STATES\n100\nTOTAL GOVERNMENT (C)\n80%\nSPENDING\nALL LEVELS)\nNOTE: (B) =(A)-(C)\n10\n10.\n1950\n1960\n1970\n1980\n1990\n2000\n2010\n5\nBank of Hawaii--April, 1973\nAs to precedent for probable isequences, we may\ntial real economic rowth can best be attained in a non-\ncompare the period of World War II during which gov-\ninflationary setting.' It is clear that constraints in govern-\nernment spending rose through 50 percent of personal\nment spending, both domestically and abroad, is the\nincome to a maximum of 63 percent in 1943 and 1944.\nonly course that will contain inflation, and provide for\nThe money supply doubled over the 5-year period be-\nreal economic growth and a sound monetary system\ntween 1941 and 1946, and by one-third in 1943 alone to\nboth domestically and internationally.\"\naccommodate war time credit requirements. (See\nThe extension of present trends offers quantitative\nFigure 7.) Average wage and price levels after the war\nevidence in support of this statement. The present size\nwere proportionately about twice prewar levels in re-\nof government is demonstrably excessive. In answer to\nsponse to war time inflation of credit.\nthe question posed initially, the economy is in fact in\nConsequently, as government expands and liquidity\ndanger of being toppled within the foreseeable future\ncontinues to decline in the future, the rate of growth\nby further increasing the size of government.\nof money must be accelerated. By 1980, an annual\nWHITHER INFLATION?\nincrease of some 15 percent would be necessary to\nThere is a tendency to treat inflation as if it were\naccommodate the needs of the economy for credit. By\na threat rather than an actuality. In this regard the words\n1985, an annual increase in the money supply of 20\n\"renewed threat\" are frequently employed such as the\npercent or more is likely. And that's hyperinflation!\nconsequence today of the economy approaching full\nShould the growth of government continue to outpace\ncapacity. The record tells another story. Since 1900 the\nthe private economy, the share of personal income that\nis left over after the government burden, will begin to\nmoney stock has been increased about 81 times, at an\nlevel out. Finally, unless the expansion of government\naverage annual increase of 6.6 percent before 1930, and\n7.5 percent from 1933 to the present. On a per capita\nis stopped, before the turn of the century residual per-\nbasis, the monetary stock is $2,555 compared to $87\nsonal income will plummet. It should be unnecessary\nin 1900, for an increase of 29 times, as shown below:\nto observe that this means the entire United States econ-\nomy would collapse. (See Figure 8.)\nMONEY STOCK RELATED TO POPULATION\nIN THE UNITED STATES\nOne might. be inclined to feel that the economic\nMoney'\nPer Capita\ncollapse could be avoided by the government as it is\nStock M2\nPopulation²\nMoney Stock\nreported to have done during the Great Depression by\n($ Billion)\n(Million)\n(Amount) (Ratio to 1900)\ndeficit spending. However, the role of government during\n1900\n6.6\n75.9\n$\n87\n1.0\nthe Depression is a moot question, some believing that\n1910\n13.6\n91.9\n148\n1.7\nmonetary and fiscal manipulation induced the Depres-\n1920\n34.2\n105.7\n323\n3.7\nsion in the first place and then aggrevated its effects\n1930\n44.8\n122.7\n365\n4.2\nrather than improving conditions.⁵ It must also be remem-\n1940\n54.2\n132.6\n409\n4.7\n1950\n152.9\n152.3\nbered that government represented less than 20 percent\n1,000\n11.5\n1960\n214.6\n180.7\n1,188\n13.6\nof personal income before the depression, whereas in\n1970\n425.2\n204.9\n2,075\n23.9\nthe future government will be much larger. Furthermore,\n1972 (P)\n525.1\n208.6\n2,517\n28.9\neven today the market is offering increasing resistance\n1973 - March\n534\n209\n2,555\n29.4\nto the outpouring of government issues, and abroad\nEST:\nthe flood has disrupted the entire international monetary\n1975\n750\n214\n3,506\n40\nstructure. Today, excessive government spending is, of\n1980\n1,700\n224\n7,585\n87\nitself, the problem and economic dislocations will only\n1985\n4,500\n236\n19,000\n218\nbe aggrevated by more spending.\n,\nEmphasizing this point, we wrote a year ago6 \"The\nDefined asM2, money in circulation, plus bank demand and time\ndeposits net of Certificates of Deposits.\nKeynesian concept of spending our way out of recessions\n2 Population projected by Bureau of the Census at present average\nvia federal deficits while acting as lady bountiful to the\nfertility rate of 2.1 births per woman.\nnations of the world in the long run has proved to be\nNOTE: Money stock projected after 1973 on the basis of a relationship\ndestructively inflationary and unworkable. Henry Kauf-\nof credit requirements shown in Figure 6.\nman of Salomon Brothers recently wrote that\nTranslated into price comparisons, the popular \"Big\n'Compromises with inflation are detrimental to real\nMac\" hamburger which is priced at 65 cents today would\neconomic expansion. High rates of inflation ultimately\nhave sold for 8 cents in 1900. A $50,000 house today\nset in motion deflationary forces rather than economic\nwould have sold for $6,000 or less in 1900. Projecting\nstimulants. Consequently the distorting influence of infla-\nthe money supply to 1985 on the basis of expected credit\ntion should by now have debunded the myth that a mod-\ndemands (as related in Figures 5 and 6), the corres-\nerate rate of inflation does not interfere with real\nponding price would be more than $2.00 for the \"Big\neconomic expansion and therefore is tolerable. Substan-\nMac.\" The price of the house would be $150,000 to\n$ Murray N. Rothbard, America's Great Depression, D. Van Nostrand\n$200,000, or more. Incredible? Yes, but not really! Not\nCo., 1963.\nonly has the country experienced periods of comparable\nBank of Hawaii's Monthly Review, for March-April, 1972.\ninflation, but underlying conditions for such out-\n6\nBank of 1973\nof-control developments have 1\nin the making for\nA first step\nhis direction would be a reduction\nmore than 40 years.\nin the rate of growth of combined federal, state and\nlocal government spending in proportion to the growth\nTHE HAWAIIAN PROBLEM\nof personal income. Having stabilized this relationship,\nThe Hawaiian economy exhibits trends which are\nlong range targets should be established to gradually\nsimilar to the national economy except that the rate of\nbring total government spending successively to 35 per-\ngrowth in the total state and local budgets coupled with\ncent of personal income, then to 30 percent and finally\nfederal taxes that are generated by the economy of\nto 25 percent of personal income as an upper limit.\nHawaii has been about 14 percent annually since the\nThe goal is to achieve a viable inflation free economy.\nmid-1960's as compared with a growth in personal\nAn immediate prohibition must be placed on any\nincome of a little over 10 percent annually. These two\nfurther tax increases at the national, state and local levels.\ntrend lines are likewise converging. An extension of the\nMore taxes will simply fan the fires of inflation and\ntrends of the past eight years will result in the government\neconomic instability. Business, labor and the consumer\ntaking 50 percent of personal income in Hawaii by about\nare constantly cajoled to live within their means; a com-\n1980. After that, net personal income will gradually stop\nparable hard line position with respect to government\nincreasing, and unless government spending is curtailed\nmust be adopted at once.\nthe Hawaiian economy will also collapse in the 1990's.\nIn working toward a limit on the size of government,\nThis means the problem of excess government in\nit will be necessary to establish rigid priorities for those\nHawaii is similar to that of the United States as a whole,\nprojects and programs which are conducive to broaden-\nbut the problem in Hawaii should be easier to bring\ning the productive base of the private economy. Emphasis\nunder control as compared to the momentum of the\nshould be placed on improving productivity and profita-\nmassive bureaucratic machinery in Washington.\nbility of the nation's workers and industries. Excluded\nINTERNATIONAL OVERTONES\nfrom the list would be programs which artificially stimu-\nNot only is this problem urgent domestically but it\nlate consumer spending and programs which dissipate\nalso has international overtones. Never before has the\nthe nation's resources.\nUnited States been challenged internationally in world\nA timetable of specific objectives should be adopted,\nmarkets to the degree that it is today by the European\nproviding for short, medium and long term goals in\nEconomic Community (EEC) or Common Market.? The\nachieving an overall and complete reduction in the size,\ninternational issue presently centers on competition\nfunding and power of the government over the economy\nbetween the inflated paper dollar and a string of common\nand the individual consumer/taxpayer.\nmarket currencies tied to the German Deutcmark. The\nAmong the many possible considerations demanding\nmark is pegged to the SDR which in turn is defined\nattention are:\nas 1/35 ounce of gold bullion. Since West Germany\nhas overtaken the United States in world trade, it appears\n1. A review of operating budget requests to trim ex-\npossible for the German mark to supercede the U.S.\ncesses. Manpower requests, except in absolutely essen-\ndollar as the basis for much of world trade unless the\ntial public services, e.g. public protection, should be\nvalue of the dollar is stabilized.\nfrozen. Present positions should be allowed to elapse\nby natural attrition. In Hawaii, for example, additional\nRATIONAL ALTERNATIVES\nstudies, experimental programs and new projects should\nWith these sobering prospects in mind, it seems only\nnot be authorized. Public pyramids of prestige, such as\nreasonable that the overall role of government should\nthe proposed University of Hawaii law and medical\nbe reexamined toward the objective of developing guide-\nschools, should be postponed indefinitely inasmuch as\nlines to limit its size. To implement a program to contain\nthe growth of these professions in Hawaii has accom-\nexcessive governmental overspending is not easy; the\nmodated than 100 each of newly licensed attorneys\nAmerican taxpayer has allowed and even encouraged\nand doctors annually from all sources for the last five\nthe condition to become increasingly more acute. If the\nyears. The proposed second University of Hawaii campus\ntrend is to be turned around, there must be a genuine\non Oahu is not needed since the Manoa campus alone\ndesire and steadfastness on the part of the public to do\nawards diplomas to more individuals annually than the\nso at this time.⁸\ntotal absorbed into the business and professional work\n7 See Bank of Hawaii Monthly Review, January, 1973 P 4.\naid and comfort;\" (Who is willing to say no to federal aid to education,\nThe moral overtones to inflation and paternalistic government cannot\nrevenue sharing, model cities, food stamps; medicare, medicaid, sub-\nbe stressed too strongly. Whether the period is Greece, Rome, Spain\nsidies for housing, transportation, etc., etc.?) \"thirdly, people are first\nafter the Inquisition, revolutionary France of the 1790's, or the present,\nenticed by the benefits and then obliged by authority to exchange\nthe moral issue is the same: \"When in the conquest of power and\nfreedom for status;\" (the strings attached to federal aid) \"and finally,\nfor political ends a government deliberately engineers inflation, all\nthe revelry of public money, which for a while seems to cost nobody\nthe monetary evils occur as before, and then to these you add such\nanything, brings to pass a state of moral obliquity throughout society.\nconsequent JS: first, that as the government expands explosively\nThe monetary debac to is relatively unimportant. The moral debacle\nthe people will lose control of it; secondly, as the people receive\nis cancerous and possibly incurable.\" Source: Garrett, Garet, The Peop-\nmillions of checks from the automatic printing machines in the United\nle's Pottage, The Caxton Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho 1965, pp. 101-\nStates Treasury they learn to become dependent on government for\n102 original copyright 1953.\n7\nforce who require degrees.' Other \"pork barrel\" capital\nattempt social programming and have instead produced\nconstruction projects, likewise, should be eliminated.\nsocial disruption the community.\nIn the future, capital projects shou be financed with\nRepeal collecuve bargaïning laws which permit\na minimum of 50 percent cash to place CIP budgeting\npublic employees to strike and to hold the taxpayers\non more of a pay as you go basis.\nas economic hostages. Likewise, any additional labor\nRepeal the Employment Act of 1946. Unless the\nlegislation that allows compulsory unionization and/or\nconcept underlying the Employment Act of 1946\nspecial tax privileges to political pressure groups should\nmended (with its present interpretation in the full\nbe abandoned. All sectors of the economy should be\nemployment budget) is abandoned, the burden on the\nequal before the law. Rather than abrogate the process\nprivate sector will expand to the point where a reasonable\nof collective bargaining, as is being advocated in some\nlevel of unemployment is impossible and the resultant\nquarters, monopolistic labor unions should either be sub-\nexpanding deficits will only accelerate inflation and\nject to the same type of anti-merger and anti-monopoly\nassure ultimate economic collapse.\nlaws under which business operates, or both labor laws\nRoll back governmental regulatory and control\nand anti-trust laws should be overhauled. The massive\nfunctions over private enterprises. A by-product of gov-\neconomic deprivation of citizens by the blackades of\nernment control has been an increase in nonproductive\nmonopolistic unions must be eliminated.\noverhead. Over the last 20 years professionals such as\ntax specialists, accountants and attorneys needed to cope\nTarget incremental tax reductions and remove\nwith the red tape have doubled their share of the work\nregressive and punative tax assessments from those that\nforce. In Hawaii, milk prices have gone up, not down,\ncontribute the most to economic development through\nunder controls. Rent controls maintain already high\ninvestment and greater productivity. A flat tax rate, appli-\nprices and discourage upkeep of existing buildings and\ncable to all who must pay taxes, is the surest way to\nincentive to build new units and will eventually result\ndrive home the point that the burden of taxation is a\nin acute housing shortages; Cf. New York City, Sweden,\ndeprivation of the economic freedom of all individuals.\nFrance, et al. Utility rates nationwide have increased\n8. Eliminate the need for burgeoning welfare roles\nwhile service and ability to meet future demands have\nby checking inflation. Meanwhile, the cushion against\ndecreased under regulation. The air and surface transpor-\nfailure became excessive when it became possible to\ntation industries have been ravaged by Federal agencies\nderive more income by being on the welfare roles than\nand Public Utility Commissions. Current moves to con-\nfrom being a productive worker. Consequently, in\nvert even more consumer items, e.g. gasoline, housing,\nHawaii, the welfare burden has been increasing at a\nfood, land, to \"public utilities\" must be stopped at the\ncompounded rate of 22 percent annually. At this rate,\noutset before more acute shortages develop.\nby 1980, welfare payments in Hawaii will equal the\nAs a prime example of price fixing, the arbitrary $35\ntotal operating budget for the state only ten years earlier.\nper ounce price of gold coupled with the prohibition\nThis rate of growth obviously cannot be sustained.\nof private ownership and restrictions on production of\ngold, has caused an acute world wide shortage of ex-\n9. Review the role and functions of the central bank-\nchange reserves and the destruction of the international\ning system with regard to monetizing federal deficits and\nmonetary system.\neconomic manipulation. A halt must be brought to the\n4. Divest government of activities that should be op-\ngrowth of the federal debt which now stands at about\nerated with private capital. Governmental inefficiency\n$450 billion.\nin its management functions is most pronounced when\n10. Bring the far flung Federal foreign aid program\nit becomes involved directly in business enterprises. Any\ninto reasonable limits. President Nixon reported the Fed-\nfuture solution to the entire problem of spending requires\neral Government has given $200 billion in foreign aid\nthat gradually, but surely the government divest itself\nsince World War II. These programs have been a major\nof all income producing enterprises from parking lots\nfactor in the accumulation abroad of short term credits)\nto electric power production, that should be under profit\nagainst gold, and have had a serious impact on the\nmaking, tax paying private operation. Many profitable\nnation's debt.\nself supporting private operations have been removed\nfrom the tax rolls thus shifting the total operating burden\n11. Finally, move toward a realistic readjustment of\nto \"the people\" as a result of government's assuming\nthe value of reserve gold to reflect the realities of interna-\nresponsibility to operate the enterprises - sometimes\ntional trade. Return of dollar convertibility to gold is\nin direct competition with private business - on a tax\nessential to restore the confidence of our trading neigh-\nfree basis.\nbors, and to provide a brake against out-of-control spend-\nStem the growing assault on private property de-\ning by politicians. The sovereignty of the dollar in world\nvelopment. Restrictive zoning laws, originally designed\ntrade is threatened by the creation of a European Com-\nfor orderly development of property have been used to\nmon Market currency. The international trade compe-\ntition of the Common Market using a gold backed cur-\n\"Manpower Directions to 1975.\" Department of Labor and Indus-\nrency, cannot be met effectively with an impoverished\ntrial Relations.\npaper dollar.\n8\n9134\nRULES AND REGULATIONS\nsatis ed that appropriate corrective ac-\n1973 and ending June 30, 1974) shall be\ngovernment shall make available for\ntion has been taken and that there will\nfiled with the Secretary on a date he shall\npublic inspection a copy of each of the\nno longer be any failure to comply. Until\ndetermine. Thereafter, each planned use\nreports required under $ 51.11(a) and\nhe is satisfied. the Secretary shall make\nreport shall be filed prior to the begin-\n(b) and information as necessary to sup-\nno further payments of such amounts.\nning of an entitlement period as defined\nport the information and data submitted\n§ 51.4 Extension of time.\nin § 51.2(f).\non each of those reports. Such detailed\n(b) Actual use report: status of trust\ninformation shall be available for public\nWhen by these regulations (other than\nfund. Each recipient government which\ninspection at.a specified location during\nthose specified in subpart F of this part)\nreceives funds pursuant to the Act shall\nnormal business hours. The Secretary\nan act is required within a specified time,\nsubmit to the Secretary an annual re--\nmay prescribe additional guidelines con-\nthe Secretary may grant a request for an\nport, on a form to be provided, of the\ncerning the form and content of such\nextension of time if in his judgment it is\namounts and purposes for which such\ninformation.\nnecessary and appropriate. Requests for\nextensions of time shall set forth the\nfunds have been spent or otherwise\n§ 51.14 Reports to the Bureau of the\ntransferred from the trust fund (as de-\nfacts and circumstances supporting the\nCensus.\nfined in $ 51.40(a)) during the reporting\nneed for more time and the amount of\nperiod. Such report also shall state any\nIt shall be the obligation of each re-\nadditional time requested.\ninterest earned on entitlement funds\ncipient government to comply promptly\n§ 51.5 Transfer of funds to secondary\nduring the period and the balance of the\nwith requests by the Bureau of the Cen-\nrecipients.\ntrust fund as of the date of the report's\nsus (or by the Secretary) for data and\ninformation relevant to the determina-\nThe prohibition and restrictions on the\nsubmission. Such reports shall show the\nuse of entitlement funds set forth in\nstatus of the trust fund as of June 30 and\ntion of entitlement allocations. Failure\nsubpart D of this part apply to a recipi-\nshall be filed with the Secretary on or\nof any recipient government to so comply\nent government's entitlement funds\nbefore September 1 of each calendar\nmay place in jeopardy the prompt re-\nyear. All such funds must be used, obli-\nceipt by it of entitlement funds.\nwhich are transferred by it to another\ngovernmental unit or private organiza-\ngated, or appropriated within the time\nSubpart C-Computation and Adjustment\ntion. A violation of subpart D of this part\nperiod specified in $ 51.40(b).\nof Entitlement\nby a secondary recipient shall constitute\n§ 51.12 Certifications.\n§ 51.20 Data.\na violation by the recipient government\nand the applicable penalty shall be im-\nThe Secretary shall require a certifica-\n(a) In general. The data used in de-\nposed on the recipient government.\ntion by the Governor, or the chief ex-\ntermination of allocations and adjust-\necutive officer of the unit of local gov-\nments thereto payable under this part\nSubpart B-Reports and Written\nernment, that no entitlement funds have\nwill be the latest and most complete data\nCommunications\nbeen used in violation of the prohibition\nsupplied by the Bureau of the Census or\n$ 51.10 Reports to the Secretary; Assur-\ncontained in § 51.30 against the use of\nsuch other sources of data as in the judg-\nances.\nentitlement funds for the purpose of ob-\nment of the Secretary will provide for\n(a) Reports for review and evaluation.\ntaining matching Federal funds. In the\nequitable allocations.\ncase of a unit of local government the\n(b) Computation and payment of en-\nThe Secretary may require each recip-\nSecretary shall require a certification by\ntitlements. (1) Allocations will not be\nient government receiving entitlement\nthe chief executive officer that entitle-\nmade to any unit of local government\nfunds to submit such annual and interim\nment funds received by it have been used\nif the available data is so inadequate as\nreports (other than those required by\n§ 51.11) as may be necessary to provide a\nonly for priority expenditures as pre-\nto frustrate the purpose of the Act. Such\nbasis for evaluation and review of com-\nscribed by $ 51.31. The certifications re-\nunits of local government will receive an\npliance with and effectiveness of the\nquired by this section shall be in such\nentitlement and payment when current\nform as the Secretary may prescribe.\nand sufficient data become available RS\nprovisions of the Act and regulations of\nnecessary to permit an equitable alloca-\nthis part.\n§ 51.13 Publication and publicity of re-\ntion.\n(b) Requisite assurances for receipt\nports; public inspection.\n(2) Payment to units of local govern-\nof entitlement funds. Each Governor of\n(a) Publication of required reports.\nment for which the Secretary has not\na State or chief executive officer of a\nEach recipient government must pub-\nreceived an address confirmation will be\nunit of local government, in order to\nlish in a newspaper a copy of each report\ndelayed until proper information is avail-\nqualify for entitlement funds, must file\nrequired to be filed under $ 51.11 (a) and\nable to the Secretary.\n& statement of assurances when re-\n(b) prior to the time such report is filed\n(3) Where the Secretary determines\nquested by the Secretary, on a form to\nwith the Secretary. Such publication\nthat the data provided by the Bureau of\nbe provided, that such government will\nshall be made in one or more newspapers\nthe Census or the Department of Com-\nabide by certain specific requirements of\nwhich are published within the State and\nmerce are not current enough, or are not\nthe Act and the prohibitions and restric-\nhave general circulation within the geo-\ncomprehensive enough, or are otherwise\ntions of Subparts D and E of this part,\ngraphic area of the recipient government\ninadequate to provide for equitable al-\nwith respect to the use of entitlement\ninvolved. In the case of a recipient gov-\nlocations he may use other data, includ-\nfunds. The Secretary will afford each\nernment located in a metropolitan area\ning estimates. The Secretary's deter-\nGovernor the opportunity for review and\nwhich adjoins and extends beyond the\nmination shall be final and such other\ncomment to the Secretary on the ade-\nboundary of the State, the recipient gov-\nadditional data and estimates as are\nquacy of the assurances by units of local\nernment may satisfy the requirement of\nused, including the sources, shall be pub-\ngovernment in his State.\nthis section by publishing its reports in\nlicized by notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER.\n§ 51.11 Report on Planned Use and\na metropolitan newspaper of general cir-\n(c) Special rule for 6 month entitle-\nActual Use of Funds.\nculation even though such newspaper\nment periods. For entitlement periods\n(a) Planned use report. Each recipient\nmay be located in the adjoining State\nwhich encompass only one-half of a year,\ngovernment which expects to receive\nfrom the recipient government.\nthe adjusted taxes and intergovern-\nfunds under the Act shall submit to the\n(b) Publicity.-Each recipient govern-\nmental transfers of any unit of local gov-\nment, at the same time as required for\nernment for that half-year will be esti-\nSecretary a report. on a form to be pro-\npublication of reports under paragraph\nmated to be one-half of the annual\nvided, of the specific amounts and pur-\nposes for which it plans to spend the\n(a) of this section, shall advise the news\namounts.\nfunds which it expects to receive for an\nmedia, including minority and bilingual\n(d) Units of local government located\nentitlement period. The planned use re-\nnews media, within its geographic area\nin more than one county area. In cases\nports for the third and fourth entitle-\nof the publication of its reports made\nwhere a unit of local government is lo-\npursuant to paragraph (a) of this sec-\ncated in more than one county, each part\nment periods (the 6-month period begin-\ntion, and shall provide copies of such\nof such unit is treated for allocation pur-\nning January 1, 1973 and ending June 30,\nreports to the news media on request.\nposes as a separate unit of government,\n1973, and the fiscal year beginning July 1,\n(c) Public inspection.-Each recipient\nand the adjusted taxes, and intergovern-\nFEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 68-TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1973\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR R\nLD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nmmediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-15-73\n#318\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced that the following bills have\nbeen signed:\nAB 627 - L.Greene\nRequires, unless exempted by the State Allocation Board\nChapter 96\neach school district applying, after July 1, 1973, for\nstate aid for the rehabilitation or replacement of\nstructurally inadequate school facilities to either,\n(1) submit a long-range master plan justifying the\napplication, or (2) certify that replacement facili-\nties will be located on an existing site containing\na school building, or (3) certify that the applicant\ndistrict maintains only one school.\nAB 383 - MacDonald Permits a county superintendent of schools to contract\nChapter 95\nwith a school district or another county superintendent\nto provide education for physically handicapped pupils\nresiding anywhere within the county, rather than only\nfor those physically handicapped pupils residing in\nschool districts having an average daily attendance\nof less than 8,000.\nSB 37 - Dills\nPermits all persons, rather than males, who were\nChapter 91\nassigned to identification and communication duties\non August 4, 1972, to elect to be local safety members\nif their employing contracting agency so elects.\nSB 101 - Rodda\nEliminates authorization for the office of the\nChapter 92\nCalifornia Educational Facilities Authority to be\nmaintained in any city other than Sacramento.\nSB 363 - Grunsky\nIncreases the maximum tax rate in any zone created\nChapter 93\nfor flood control purposes within the San Benito\nCounty Water Conservation and Flood Control District\nfrom 25¢ to 40c per $100 of assessed valuation of\nland and improvements if the voters of the zone\napprove such an increase at a special election called\nby the board of directors.\nSB 467 - Collier\nAppropriates $7.5 million in augmentation of the\nChapter 94\nEmergency Fund of the Budget Act of 1972.\n#\n#\n#\n#\n#\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, Californ\n95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-15-73\n#319\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointment of\nRichard G. Murray of Carmel as a member of the State Board of Landscape\nArchitects.\nMrrray, 39 year old Republican, has been a member of the board\nsince 1970. His new term will expire June 1, 1977.\nA landscape architect, Murray is president of the state board.\nHe is also a past director and former vice president of the Northern\nCalifornia Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects,\nand was on the organization's committee of Prefessional Registration\nBoards of Landscape Architects.\nBoard members receive $28 per diem when on official business.\nAddress:\nPost Office Box 5816\nCarmel, California 93921\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, Californi\n95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-15-73\n#320\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointment of Mrs.\nLee Richmond of Corona and Mrs. Marie E. Haff of Burlingame as members\nof the Collection Agency Advisory Board in the Department of Consumer\nAffairs.\nBoth were named to four year terms.\nMrs. Richmond, a Republican, has been a member of the board since\nJuly, 1971. A former finance company secretary, she is a widow with\ntwo children.\nMrs. Haff, a Republican, is secretary-treasurer of the Associated\nCredit Bureaus of California, and has been manager of the Credit Bureau\nof San Mateo and Burlingame since 1954. She was first appointed to the\nboard in April of this year.\nBoard members receive $28 per diem and their necessary expenses\nwhen on official business.\n######\nMrs. Lee Richmond\nPost Office Box 133\nCorona, California 92118\nMrs. Marie E. Haff\n708 Burlingame Avenue\nBurlingame, California 94010\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nmmediate\nSacramento, Californi / 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-15-73\n#321\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointment of\nMrs. Nancy C. Keating of Culver City as a member of the Physical\nTherapy Examining Committee in the Department of Consumer Affairs.\nMrs. Keating, a Republican, has been a member of the committee\nsince 1970. Her new term will expire June 1, 1977.\nShe is the chief physical therapist at the California Hospital\nMedical Center in Los Angeles.\nMrs. Keating is a 1949 graduate of the University of California\nat Los Angeles, and received her certificate of physical therapy from\nthe city's Childrens Hospital.\nShe is a member of the American Physical Therapy Association and\nthe state council of the California chapters of the APTA.\nCommittee members receive $28 per diem when on official business.\n######\nAppointee's address:\n5800 Green Valley Circle, Apt. 217\nCulver City, California 90230\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RC LD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nImmediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary 95814\n916-445-4571\n6-15-73\n#322\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointment to a\nfour year term of John A. Vibert of Laguna Beach as a member of the\nCemetery Board in the Department of Consumer Affairs.\nThe appointment requires confirmation by the state Senate.\nVibert, a 57 year old Republican, is president and general manager\nof Pacific View Memorial Park in Newport Beach. He has been a member of\nthe Board since July, 1968.\nA graduate of Stanford University, Vibert is a director and past\npresident of the Interment Association of California and served as\nprogram chairman of the organization for two years. He is a past\npresident of the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce.\nBoard members receive $28 per diem when on official business.\n####\nAddress:\n1611 Emerald Bay\nLaguna Beach, California 92651\nWalthall\nor RONALD REAGAN\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secre ry\n916-445-4571\n6-15-73\n#323\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointment to a\nfour-year term of Gregory Sells of Fresno as a member of the Vocational\nRehabilitation Appeals Board.\nThe appointment requires confirmation by the state Senate.\nSells, 36, an Independent, is the manager of the Rehabilitation\nCounseling Department of the Leon S. Peters Rehabilitation Center in\nFresno. He is a graduate of the Kansas State Teachers College at\nEmporia with a B.S. Degree in psychology, and holds a Masters Degree\nin rehabilitation counseling from the University of Arizona. He\nreplaces Carolyn L. Vash, Ph.D., of Altadena, who has resigned.\nHe is the treasurer of the California Association of the Physically\nHandicapped, and a member of the Advisory Board of Fresno City College.\nBoard members receive their actual and necessary expenses when on\nofficial business.\n#####\nAddress:\nGregory Sells\n4040 East Dakota Street\nApt. 3\nFresno, California 93726\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nmmediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-15-73\n#324\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointment to\nfour-year terms of Raymond K. Liner of Bakersfield and Eugene R.\nScheffer of Carmel as members of the Structural Pest Control Board in\nthe Department of Consumer Affairs.\nThey were first appointed to the board May 18, 1970.\nLiner, a 50 year old Democrat, is president of Liner Pest Control\nin Bakersfield. He is a member and former president of the Pest Control\nOperators of California, Inc.\nScheffer, 56, a Republican, is a partner in the Ailing House Pest\nControl Company in Carmel. He is a graduate of Iowa State University\nat Ames, Iowa, and is a director of the Northern California Pest Control\nAssociation.\nBoard members receive $28 per diem when on official business.\n#####\nAppointees' addresses:\nRaymond K. Liner\nEugene R. Scheffer\n120 Western Drive\nP.O. Box 2618\nBakersfield 93309\nCarmel, California 93921\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nSacramento, California 95814\nMEMO TO THE PRESS\nEd Gray, Press Secret\n1\n916-445-4571\n6-15-73\n#325\nGOVERNOR'S SCHEDULE\nJune 18, 1973\nthrough\nJune 24, 1973\nMonday, June 18\n11:00 a.m.\nWelcoming remarks, U.S. Conference of Mayors,\nSt. Francis Hotel, San Francisco\nOvernight - Sacramento\nTuesday, June 19\nNo public appointments scheduled\nOvernight - Sacramento\nWednesday, June 20\n2:00 p.m.\nPresentation to Governor Reagan of placque expressing\nappreciation for Perris Dam, by a Riverside County\nCivic group. Governor's office.\n2:15 p.m.\nPhoto with governor to publicize Old Sacramento\nDays, 4th of July. Governor's office.\nOvernight - Sacramento\nThursday, June 21\n10:30 a.m.\nBoys' State Inaugural Ceremony, California State\nUniversity at Sacramento. Remarks.\n6:00 p.m.\nReception for Paul Bannai, Republican candidate in\nthe 67th Assembly District, Hacienda Hotel,\nLos Angeles.\nOvernight - Los Angeles\nFriday, June 22\n3:00 p.m.\nAmerican Legion Convention, Convention Center,\nAnaheim. Remarks.\n8:00 p.m.\nMeeting of the Pacific Palisades Community Council,\nPalisades Women's Club, Pacific Palisades. Remarks.\nOvernight - Los Angeles\nSaturday, June 23\nNo public appointments scheduled\nOvernight - Los Angeles\nSunday, June 24\nNo public appointments scheduled\nOvernight - Los Angeles\n#####\nGray\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR R LD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nmmediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-19-73\n#326\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointments of\nSacramento attorney George A. Jouganatos and Elk Grove sheep rancher\nHoward P. Wackman, II, to the 52nd District Agricultural Association.\nJouganatos, 47, is in private law practice in Sacramento. He\nhas served on the board since August 19, 1971. He is a member of the\nSacramento, State and American bar associations. He is also a member\nof the California and American Trial Lawyers Associations.\nWackman, 35, has served on the board since March 5, 1969. He\nraises sheep and seed clover on his 1,400 acre farm in Elk Grove. He\nis former president of the Sacramento County Farm Bureau and is a\nformer national chairman of the American Farm Bureau Federations' young\nfarmers and ranchers section.\nBoth men are Republicans and will serve four year terms. They\nwill receive necessary expenses.\n######\nAddresses:\nGeorge A. Jouganatos\nHoward P. Wackman, II\n5721 Carlson Drive\nRoute 1, Box 1547\nSacramento, California 95819\nElk Grove, California 95624\nGarcia\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, Californi\n95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-19-73\n#327\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointment of\nRobert S. Nichols, D.P.M., of Vallejo to the Podiatry Examining\nCommittee in the Department of Consumer Affairs. He has served on the\ncommittee since March 4, 1970.\nDr. Nichols, 51, has practiced podiatry in Vallejo since 1954.\nHe is past president of the California Podiatry Association and has\nserved on the Board of Trustees of the California College of Podiatric\nMedicine.\nHe is married and the father of two children. He is a Republican.\nHe will serve a four year term and receive $28 per diem.\n########\nAddress:\n600 Marin Street\nVallejo, California 94590\nGarcia\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RO LD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nImmediate\nSacramento, Californi 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-19-73\n#328\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointments to\nfour-year terms of Herbert C. Templeman, D.O., of Port Hueneme,\nL. Arthur Moore, D.O., of Bakersfield, and King H. Harger, D.O., of\nValley Center to the Board of Osteopathic Examiners in the Department\nof Consumer Affairs.\nDr. Templeman, 50-year-old Republican, has been a member of the\nboard since 1965. A graduate of the College of Osteopathic Physicians\nand Surgeons in Los Angeles, he is a member of the Osteopathic Physicians\nand Surgeons of California, the Ventura County Heart Association, the\nHueneme Elementary School Board, and a past president and member of the\nOxnard Community Hospital Board.\nDr. Moore, 63, is a 1940 graduate of the College of Osteopathic\nPhysicians and Surgeons in Los Angeles and has practiced in Bakersfield\nfor 28 years. A Republican, he has been a member of the board since 1969.\nDr. Harger, 63, has been a member of the board since 1968. A\nRepublican, he is a graduate of the College of Physicians and Surgeons\nin Los Angeles. He is a member of the Osteopathic Physicians and\nSurgeons of California and the California State Grange.\nBoard members receive $28 per diem when on official business.\n#####\nAppointees' addresses:\nHerbert C. Templeman, D.O.\n811 E. Myrna Drive\nPort Hueneme 93041\nL. Arthur Moore, D.O.\n428 - 17th Street\nBakersfield 93301\nKing H. Harger, D.O.\nP.O. Box 722\nValley Center 92082\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: mmediate\nSacramento, Californi 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-19-73\n#329\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointments of\nLouis J. Tosio, Jr., of Crescent City, and Palmer Westbrook of Smith\nRiver, to the 41st District Agricultural Association Board of Directors.\nThe association operates the Del Norte County Fair.\nTosio, a 50-year-old Democrat, has served on the board since\nMay 17, 1965. He is the owner of a supermarket and resort. He is\nmarried and the father of three children.\nWestbrook, 58, a Republican, has served on the board since\nJune 18, 1962. He is president of the Easter Lilies, Incorporated,\nand a director of the Pacific Bulb Growers Association. He is also\npast president of the Del Norte Farm Bureau. He is married and has\nfour children.\nBoard members serve four-year terms and receive necessary expenses.\n#####\nAppointees' addresses:\nLouis J. Tosio, Jr.\nPalmer Westbrook\nP.O. Box 201\nP.O. Box 456\nCrescent City 95531\nSmith River 95567\nGarcia\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secre :y\n916-445-4571\n6-19-73\n#330\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointments of\nHerbert W. Chandler and Oscar W. Graeser, both of Woodland, to the\n40th District Agricultural Association Board of Directors. The\nassociation operates the Yolo County Fair.\nChandler, 51, a Republican, is the Yolo County Agricultural\nCommissioner and has served on the board since June 24, 1968. He is\na former president of the Sacramento Valley Agricultural Commissioners'\nAssociation; is a pastpresident and director of the Yolo County Federal\nCredit Union; is secretary of the California Association of Weights\nand Measures Officials and vice president of the United Community Fund.\nGraeser, a 62-year-old Democrat, is a Woodland area real estate\ndeveloper. He has served on the board for 32 years.\nBoard members serve four-year terms and receive necessary expenses.\n######\nAppointees' addresses:\nHerbert W. Chandler\nOscar W. Graeser\n18 West Marshall\n55 Pershing Avenue\nWoodland 95695\nWoodland 95695\nGarcia\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASF\nImmediate\nSacramento, Californi 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-19-73\n#331\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointments of\npharmacists and businessmen David H. Garfield of San Diego and Kenneth\nG. Gonsalves, of Healdsburg, to the State Board of Pharmacy. Both have\nserved on the board since May 18, 1970.\nGarfield, 62, is a graduate of the University of Washington and\nSouthwestern University. He is president of Clairemont Pharmacies and\nis affiliated with Clairement Rental Properties. He is a member of the\nboard of directors of Union Bank and a past president of the Boys Club\nof San Diego and the San Diego Mental Health Association. He is married\nand has two daughters.\nGonsalves, 52, is a 1948 graduate of the University of California\nCollege of Pharmacy. He has interests in pharmacies in Healdsburg,\nSanta Rosa, Sebastopol and Ukiah. He is active in numerous state and\nnational pharmaceutical associations. He is married and has one daughter.\nBoth men have been appointed to four-year terms and will receive\n$28 per diem. They are Republicans.\n# # # # #\nAppointees' addresses:\nDavid H. Garfield\nKenneth G. Gonsalves\n1722 Colgate Circle\n1224 North Fitch Mountain Road\nLa Jolla 92037\nHealdsburg 95448\nGarcia\nOrriCe or COVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secret\ny\n916-445-4571\n6-19-73\n#332\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointments of\nDr. Ian Campbell, Ph.D., of San Francisco, and Joe M. Crosby of Pasadena,\nto the state Board of Registration for Geologists and Geophysicists.\nThey have both served on the board since April 16, 1969.\nDr. Campbell, 72, a Democrat, is a retired Chief of the California\nDivision of Mines and Geology. He is president of the California\nAcademy of Sciences in San Francisco and is a recipient of the Public\nService Award from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.\nCrosby, 62, a Republican, will represent the general public on the\nboard. He is president and general manager of the California Liquid\nFertilizer Company in Pasadena. He was an officer and pilot in the U.S.\nArmy Air Corps during World War II. He is married and has two grown sons.\nBoard members serve four-year terms and receive $28 per diem and\nexpenses.\n######\nAppointees' addresses:\nIan Campbell, Ph.D.\nJoe M. Crosby\n1333 Jones Street, Apt. 906\n1524 Via Del Rey\nSan Francisco 94109\nSouth Pasadena, California\nGarcia\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nmmediate\nSacramento, Californi\n95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-19-73\n#333\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointment to a\nfour-year term of R. Scott Jackson, D.V.M., of Chino, to the Board of\nExaminers in Veterinary Medicine in the Department of Consumer Affairs.\nDr. Jackson, a 59-year-old political Independent, is a graduate\nof Howard Payne College, Brownwood, Texas, and received his veterinarian\ndegree from Colorado State University at Fort Collins.\nHe is vice president of the Board of Examiners and a member of the\nContinuing Education Committee of the California Veterinary Medicine\nAssociation.\nDr. Jackson is a former associate professor of veterinary medicine\nat Colorado State University and was a research assistant in internal\nparasites of animals with the U.S. Department of Agriculture at Logan,\nUtah.\nBoard members receive $28 per diem when on official business.\n######\nAppointee's address:\nR. Scott Jackson, D.V.M.\nJ. K. Houssels\n14909 Archibald Avenue\nChino 91710\nOFFICE or GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nImmediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secret\ny\n916-445-4571\n6-19-73\n#334\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointments of\nNorthridge businessman D. Gordon Meighan and Carmel attorney Eben\nWhittlesey to the state Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind.\nMeighan, 45, a partner in the Home Food Service Company, has served\non the board since May 20, 1971. A veteran of ten years active duty\nin the U.S. Navy with an underwater demolition team, he is a recipient\nof two Purple Hearts, the Presidential Unit Citation and five combat\nstars. He has been active in dog obedience training programs since 1952.\nHe is married and has three children.\nWhittlesey, 60, is a graduate of Williams College and earned his\nlaw degree at Stanford University. A member of the board since\nNovember 26, 1970, he will be a blind representative on the board.\nWhittlesey, who is blind, was a member of the Carmel City Council from\n1960 to 1972 and was Mayor from 1962 to 1964. He is married and the\nfather of one daughter.\nBoth men are Republicans and will serve four-year terms. Board\nmembers receive $28 per diem.\n######\nAppointees' addresses:\nD. Gordon Meighan\nEben Whittlesey\n9301 Lasaine Avenue\nP.O. Box 196\nNorthridge 91324\nCarmel 93921\nGarcia\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RO LD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nImmediate\nSacramento, Californi. 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-19-73\n#335\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointments of\nLos Angeles architects Cliff L. Burgess and Howard H. Morgridge to the\nstate Board of Architectural Examiners.\nBurgess, 52, who operates the building design firm of Cliff Burgess\nand Associates, has served on the board since June24, 1968. He is a\nmember and former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the American\nInstitute of Building Design. He represents building designers on the\nboard.\nMorgridge, 54, a partner in the architectural firm of Powell,\nMorgridge, Richards and Coghlan, has served on the board since\nJanuary 4, 1971. A graduate of the University of Southern California,\nhe will represent the AIA on the board. A Fellow in the American\nInstitute of Architects, he has won honor awards for his work on Santa\nMonica City College, Corona Del Mar Elementary School and the Chancel\nChurch Guild of American Oneonta Congregational Church.\nBoth men are Republicans and will serve four-year terms. Board\nmembers receive $28 per diem.\n######\nAppointees' addresses:\nCliff L. Burgess\nHoward H. Morgridge\n11920 Mayfield\n1 Bay Island\nLos Angeles 90049\nBalboa, California\nGarcia\nor SOVENTOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secret\ny\n916-445-4571\n6-19-73\n#336\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointment to\nfour-year terms of Jack O. Pence, O.D., of Arroyo Grande, and\nBernhardt N. Thal, O.D., of Berkeley to the state Board of Optometry\nin the Department of Consumer Affairs.\nPence, 55, is a Republican. He has served on the board since\nFebruary of 1970. He is a 1942 graduate of the University of California\nat Berkeley; member of the California Optometric Association, American\nOptometric Association, and a Fellow of the American Academy of\nOptometry. He is also a former president of the Tri-Counties\nOptometric Society.\nThal, a 55-year-old Democrat, has been a member of the board since\nNovember, 1970. He is a graduate of Colorado State University at Fort\nCollins, and received his degree in optometry in 1948 from the University\nof California at Berkeley.\nThe founder of California Vision Services, he is a member of the\nCalifornia Optometric Association and the American Optometric Association.\nBoard members receive $28 per diem when on official business.\n######\nAppointees' addresses:\nJack O. Pence, O.D.\nBernhardt N. Thal, O.D.\n134 E. Branch Street\n150 Lawson Road\nArroyo Grande 93420\nKensington 94707\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, Californi 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secret\ny\n916-445-4571\n6-19-73\n#337\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today nominated Los Angeles Superior Court\nJudge L. Thaxton Hanson to the Second District Court of Appeal to\nreplace Justice William P. Clark, Jr., who was elevated to the state\nSupreme Court.\nJudge Hanson, 52, a Republican, was appointed to the Superior\nCourt bench on August 3, 1968, by Governor Reagan. A native of Joliet,\nIllinois, he earned his undergraduate degree in engineering at the\nUniversity of Illinois in 1947. His college education was interrupted\nfour years by service with the U.S. Army in World War II. As a\n23-year-old captain in the Cavalry (mechanized), he saw combat action in\nEurope.\nHe earned his J.D. degree in 1950 from the University of Michigan\nlaw school in Ann Arbor. He again served on active duty with the Army\nduring the Korean War and in 1954 joined the Los Angeles law firm of\nMcBain & Morgan.\nHe joined the law firm of Schell & Delamer in 1959 and was a senior\npartner when he was appointed a Superior Court judge in 1968. He is a\ngraduate of the California College of Trial Judges, U.C. Berkeley, and\nthe National College of State Trial Judges, University of Nevada.\nJustice Hanson, whose father was a lawyer, is married to the former\nEvelynne Rasmussen. He is active in numerous professional, civic and\nfraternal organizations and was a founder and former chairman of the\nSan Fernando Valley Business and Professional Association.\nAs an associate justice of the Court of Appeal, he will receive an\nannual salary of $43,672.\n#######\nGarcia\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nMEMO TO THE PRESS\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-19-73\nMrs. Ronald Reagan will show the State of California display\ncase to former POWs Master Sargeant James Gough, USAF, and Captain\nThomas Hanton, USAF, on Wednesday (6/20) at 10:45 a.m. in the capitol\ncorridor. The case has bracelets and photos of returning California\nPOWs and is another welcome home gesture by the State of California to\nall ex-POWs.\nPress coverage is invited.\n####\nGarcia\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nSacramento, Californi\n95814\nMEMO TO THE PRESS\nEd Gray, Press Secret\ny\n916-445-4571\n6-20-73\nGovernor Reagan will hold a press conference in Room 1190, in\nthe state Capitol, on Thursday, June 28, at 10:30 a.m.\n######\nWalthall\nor\nCOVERNOR\nREAGAN\nMEMO TO THE PRESS\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secret\nFrom:\nernor's Press Office\n916-445-4571\n6-20-73\n#338\nIt is clear that the so-called analysis of Governor Reagan's revenue\ncontrol and tax reduction program by Assembly Speaker Moretti's top\nlieutenant, Mr. Hauck,\nis politically motivated and was designed to\nreflect the personal views of the assembly speaker.\nAs such, it is nothing more than a self-serving effort to gain\npublicity for Mr. Moretti's own prejudices against the governor's proposal\nAny person seriously wishing to analyze Governor Reagan's proposed\nconstitutional amendment cannot fail to understand the basic purpose of\nthe document, prepared by the speaker's own staff: to confuse the\npeople with spurious allegations and statistics and divert attention from\nthe heart of the principal issue facing the people---shall the\nuncontrolled growth of government be allowed to continue at the expense\nof the taxpayers?\nGovernor Reagan's answer is No; Speaker Moretti says Yes.\nThere is no reason to assume that the increasing take by government\nfrom the taxpayers' earnings which has occurred in the past will change\nin the future unless a limit is established in the constitution to control\nfuture runaway government spending.\nA good example is the fact that there are now nearly a billion\ndollars in additional spending proposals before the legislature which\nwould literally eat up any return of the current state surplus to the\ntaxpayers. And, these bills presumably would fund programs on an ongoing\nbasis out of a one-time surplus which will not be available in the future.\nWhere will the money come from to continue these proposed spending\nprograms when such a surplus is not available in the coming years?\nOut of the taxpayers' pockets, of course:\nMr. Hauck's analysis is based upon two fallacious assumptions:\nCalifornia's economy has no more growth potential, and\n-left to its own devices, somehow state government will become less\ngreedy in the future for the people's money.\nThere is no historical evidence to support either assumption. In\nfact all the historical evidence contradicts both assumptions.\nThe projections of the governor as to the savings to a family of\nfour, which will accrue from his proposed tax limitation program, are\nbased on the hard facts of history.\n- 1 -\n#338\nMr. Hauck's so-called analysis obviously was prepared hastily and\nfor the sole purpose of confusing the people about the real issues\naddressed by the governor's proposal. The Hauck document again shows\nSpeaker Moretti's failure to come to grips with the basic elements of\nthe revenue control and tax reduction program. On the other hand,\nliterally months were spent by the governor's tax reduction task force,\nmany leading economists and the governor's cabinet and staff, in both\nresearching and formulating the proposed constitutional amendment.\nIf Mr. Moretti is really sincere in his promise not to increase\ntaxes in the next five years, he should be the first in line to vote\nfor the tax limitation initiative November 6.\nAttached is an immediate response to the five summary allegations\nin Mr. Hauck's 17-page analysis, as well as a report to the governor\nfrom his task force on tax reduction which cites examples of tax savings\nto a number of model California families which will occur during the\nnext 15 years if Governor Reagan's tax limitation proposal is approved\nby the people later this year.\n(Governor Reagan has seen and approved this press office statement).\n######\nGray\nI I 2\nHere are Mr. Hauck's five summaryallegations and the governor's office\nresponses to them:\n(1)\nALLEGATION: The expenditure limitation plan does not guarantee\nthat the net state-local tax burden of the typical\nfamily will be reduced. In fact, because of possible\nincreases in tuition and local sales and property\ntax increases, the net state-local tax burden of the\ntypical family may increase.\n(1) RESPONSE:\nThe mechanics of the governor's revenue control and\ntax reduction program require that state tax rates\nbe reduced by 20 percent over a 15-year period. The program has built-\nin guarantees against future property tax increases and against state\ngovernment forcing increased costs on local entities. Educational costs\nin California cannot possibly continue to increase at historic rates\nin view of decreasing school populations. The legislative analyst has,\nin fact, so admitted this in his analysis of the governor's program.\nThe University of California and the state university system are\nfinding they must actively recruit new students in order to maintain\ntheir quotas. Mr. Hauck's prediction of increased tuition therefore\nassumes that the state will support publicly financed higher educational\nfacilities that are too big for the number of students it can draw.\nThus, the charge that the program does not guarantee a decrease in the\ntax burden on the typical family is preposterous.\n(2)\nALLEGATION: To receive $804 in state tax savings in the first\nfour years of the plan as claimed by the governor,\nthe \"average family\" would have to earn annually\n$35,000. Such a family ranks in the top 4 percent\nfamily income bracket according to the 1970 Census.\n(2) RESPONSE:\nMr. Hauck has neglected to count many of the taxes\nwhich affect an average family in California and\nwhich are controlled by the governor's program. He has also attempted\nto obfuscate what an average family is by defining what he considers\nto be a typical family. We analyzed 24 \"typical\" families using average\nincome VS. median income, differences in children's ages, and differences\nin other pertinent family circumstances, such as home ownership and\nownership of items producing capital gains. The average family income\nin California is presently slightly in excess of $15,000, whereas the\nmedian income is around $12,000. A family of four with an average\nincome of $15,000 and two children ten years old which owns a home with\na value of $20,000 and has no capital gains will realize a cumulative\nsavings of $24,019 over the 15-year period of the program. If we con-\nsider a family with a median income, again with two children ten years\nold and home worth $20,000, the cumulative savings would be $18,551\nduring the same period.\nThere is, therefore, no basis for this assertion that an \"average\nfamily\" would have to earn annually $35,000 to realize the savings\nclaimed by the governor.\n(3)\nALLEGATION: The 1970 Census indicates that the typical California\nfamily earns about $13,000. This family will receive\nabout $140 in state tax savings over the first four\nyears of the plan. This is one-sixth the amount\nclaimed by the governor.\n(3) RESPONSE:\nMr. Hauck's estimate of tax savings totally disregards\nboth the history of California's economic and govern-\nment growth and the wording of the constitutional amendment itself since\nthe amendment will require either tax rate reductions or direct refunds\nto California's taxpayers.\nEither through tax reductions or tax refunds, the average California\nfamily will realize a $72 savings in the first year, $152 savings in\nthe second year, $240 savings in the third year and $340 in the fourth\nyear.\n-1-\nWith the limitation in effect, excess revenues could be used to\nfurther decrease sales taxes, reduce gasoline taxes, decrease the cost\nof business licenses, further decrease state income taxes or any combin-\nation of these and other taxes. Furthermore, if the legislature does\nnot choose to reduce taxes, the excess revenues must be refunded directly\nto the taxpayers.\nTherefore, his later statement that \"tax savings resulting from\nstate expenditure limitation in the first year will derive solely from\nthe permanent 7½ percent income tax credit\" is absurd.\n(4) ALLEGATION: Projecting personal income and state revenues fifteen\nyears into the future is highly speculative. When more\nrealistic near-future projections are used, the tax\nsavings claim of the governor bears no relation to\nfact. Therefore, the $17,000 tax savings claim\nappears to be grossly exaggerated and a misrepresenta-\ntion of economic and fiscal realities.\n(4) RESPONSE:\nMr. Hauck and the Assembly Speaker do not appear to\nbelieve that the State of California will continue to\nprosper. They therefore purposely disregard the historic growth of\nCalifornia in favor of pessimistic projections of California's economic\ngrowth over the next 15 years. To the extent that the inordinate growth\nof California government in itself has slowed California's economic\ngrowth as most economists believe, the revenue control and tax reduction\nprogram should, if anything, result in greater economic potential in\nthe future, in which case the governor's $17,000 tax savings claim for\na family of four is conservative.\n(5)\nALLEGATION: The typical family will lose 22 percent of any state\ntax savings to the federal government in the form of\nhigher federal income taxes. Between 30 percent and\n40 percent of the total of any state tax savings will\nbe lost to the federal government.\n(5) RESPONSE:\nMr. Hauck apparently assumes that all reductions in\nstate taxes resulting from the governor's program\nwill be reductions to the income tax, which obviously will not be the\ncase, and he further assumes that California's \"typical\" family itemizes\nits deductions, which is purely a subjective assumption.\nFurther, Mr. Hauck is projecting higher federal taxes presumably\non the basis that higher taxes are inevitable. One of the dramatic\neffects of the governor's revenue control and tax reduction program,\nif passed by the people next fall, will be to put all government\nofficials--federal, state and local--on notice that the people want,\nneed and are demanding a lower tax burden.\n# # #\n-2-\nState of California\nMemorandum\nTo\n:\nGovernor Ronald Reagan\nDate :\nJune 1, 1973\nSubject:\nFrom :\nGovernor's Task Force on Tax Reduction\nOpponents of your Revenue Control and Tax Reduction Plan have\ncriticized the program for crediting cumulative savings to an average\nCalifornia family of four of $17,756 for the 15 year duration of the\nprogram. The data that produced this result are in Figure 6, Table\n6 and applicable footnotes in the Blue Book on the program. As\nstated there, the savings are based upon four per capita shares of\nthe difference in tax burden with and without the Tax Reduction\nAmendment.\nIn order to verify the accuracy and appropriateness of Table 6\nin the Blue Book, we have analyzed several \"average families\" as to\nincome, children's ages, home ownership, and presence or absence of\ncapital gains income. The attached chart presents the cumulative\nsavings under the tax program for 24 such families.\nThe median family income in California is, by latest estimate\nof the Department of Finance, $11,450. However, in our earlier\ncomputations we used the $11,000 figure. There is a considerable\ndifference between median income and average income. The average\nfamily income in California this year, again as estimated by the\nDepartment of Finance, is $14,859. Neither the median income nor\nthe average income figures include distribution of capital gains\n-1-\nGovernor Reagan\n-2-\nJune 1, 1973\nattributable to Calif ornians, nor do these income figures consider the\ncapital accumulation normally adhering to a homeowner as he makes his\nmortgage payments. To determine average capital gains we divided total\ncapital gains attributable to Californians by the number of California\nfamilies. As you can see from the attached chart, the figure is small\n($559 per family) and, therefore, relatively insignificant in computa-\ntions of savings with the tax amendment. We attributed $2,000 per\nyear to each family owning a home. This could be considered either\nthe rental value or the average capital cumulation amount for a home\nwith a present resale value of $20,000.\nIn looking at the impact of the Tax Reduction Amendment on any family\nover a 15 year period, the age of the children is a critical factor in\ndetermining both total family income and cumulative savings under the\namendment. In our analysis we have assumed two children and, as indicated\non the chart, have varied their ages from 5 to 10 to 15 to show the\ndifference in impact dependent upon age. We have assumed that when a\nchild reaches the age of 21 he will add 1/2 of either an average or median\nfamily income to the income of that family.\nThe following six cases highlight the range of effects of the Tax\nReduction Amendment based upon our income analyses:\nA.\n(#11 on attached chart) Average income, 2 children aged 10, renter,\nno capital gains = $21,177 cumulative savings.\nB.\n(#3 on attached chart) Average income, 2 children aged 15, homeowner,\ncapital gains ($559) = $28,445 cumulative savings.\nC.\n(#10 on attached chart) Average income, 2 children aged 5, renter,\nno capital gains = $12,576 cumulative savings.\nGovernor Reagan\n-3-\nJune 1, 1973\nD.\n(#23 on attached chart) Median income, 2 children aged 10, renter,\nno capital gains = $15,600 cumulative savings.\nE.\n(#15 on attached chart) Median income, 2 children aged 15, homeowner,\ncapital gains ($559) = $22,145 cumulative savings.\nF.\n(#22 on attached chart) Median income, 2 children aged 5, renter,\nno capital gains = $9,061 cumulative savings.\nIn our opinion the \"average average\" family is represented on the\nattached chart by either #5 ($24,019 savings based upon average income)\nor #17 ($18,551 cumulative savings based upon median income). In any\nevent, this analysis clearly indicates the validity of the original data\nin the Blue Book and the accuracy of our contentions as to actual savings\nto California families if the Tax Reduction Amendment is enacted.\nPROJECTED TAX SAVINGS UNDER\nGOVERNOR REAGAN'S REVENUE CONTROL & TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM\nFOR 24 \"TYPICAL\" CALIFORNIA FAMILIES\nAverage Age of\nHome\nCapital\nCumulative\nNo.\nIncome\n2 Children\nOwner\nGains ($599)\nTax Savings\nNo.\n1\n*Average Income\n5\nYes\nYes\n$ 14,742\n1\n2\nAverage Income\n10\nYes\nYes\n24,828\n2\n3\nAverage Income\n15\nYes\nYes\n28,445\n3\n4\nAverage Income\n5\nYes\nNo\n14,256\n4\n5\nAverage Income\n10\nYes\nNo\n24,019\n5\n6\nAverage Income\n15\nYes\nNo\n27,518\n6\n7\nAverage Income\n5\nNo\nYes\n13,092\n7\n8\nAverage Income\n10\nNo\nYes\n22,020\n8\n9\nAverage Income\n15\nNo\nYes\n25,229\n9\n10\nAverage Income\n5\nNo\nNo\n12,576\n10\n11\nAverage Income\n10\nNo\nNo\n21,177\n11\n12\nAverage Income\n15\nNo\nNo\n24,263\n12\n13 **Median Income\n5\nYes\nYes\n11,582\n13\n14\nMedian Income\n10\nYes\nYes\n19,437\n14\n15\nMedian Income\n15\nYes\nYes\n22,145\n15\n16\nMedian Income\n5\nYes\nNo\n10,833\n16\n17\nMedian Income\n10\nYes\nNo\n18,551\n17\n18\nMedian Income\n15\nYes\nNo\n21,252\n18\n19\nMedian Income\n5\nNo\nYes\n9,780\n19\n20\nMedian Income\n10\nNo\nYes\n16,471\n20\n21\nMedian Income\n15\nNo\nYes\n18,868\n21\n22\nMedian Income\n5\nNo\nNo\n9,061\n22\n23\nMedian Income\n10\nNo\nNo\n15,600\n23\n24\nMedian Income\n15\nNo\nNo\n17,884\n24\n*$14,859\n**$11,000\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR R NALD REAGAN\nRELEASE\nImmediate\nSacramento, Californ\n95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-20-73\n#339\nGovernor Ronald Reagan has proposed that the State of California\nspend the expected $107,362,918 in general revenue sharing funds\nallocated for the first six months of 1973 I on the following item:\nTo be transferred from the State Revenue Sharing Trust Fund\nto the General Fund for transfer to the State School Fund\nfor expenditure in 1973-74 for local schools.\nA detailed account of the State of California's planned use of\nrevenue sharing funds will appear in the Los Angeles Times and San\nFrancisco Chronicle on June 20, 1973. Records documenting the plan are\nopen to public inspection at the California State Department of Finance\nin\nSacramento. Publication of such a plan, in addition to a subsequent\nactual use of funds report, is required by the State and Local Fiscal\nAssistance Act of 1972, which authorize revenue sharing.\nGeneral revenue sharing is a $30.2 billion, five-year program\nwhich returns a portion of federal taxes to state and local governments.\nThe unique feature of the program is that it allows state and local\nofficials to decide how their jurisdiction's funds are to be spent\nwithin broad federal guidelines.\nThis press release is required by U.S. Treasury regulation\nP 51.13(b) as a requirement for compliance with the federal revenue\nsharing act of 1972.\nThe information in the release is not new, and has been publicly\ndiscussed by the governor in the past. It ties in with the budget,\nand SB 238 (Lagomarsino) which is the governor's bill dealing with the\n$850 million surplus.\nA xerox of the Treasury regulation is also attached which indicates\ndistribution of this release to news media, \"including minority and\nbilingual news media.\"\n# # #\nGray\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-21-73\n#340\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointment of Mrs.\nJohn (Betty) Emery of Fullerton as a member of the California Advisory\nBoard to the Bureau of Employment Agencies in the Department of Consumer\nAffairs.\nGovernor Reagan also announced the reappointment to the Board of\nRobert W. Stuart of San Rafael. Both terms are for four years.\nA resident of Fullerton for 25 years, Mrs. Emery is a graduate of\nthe Argubright School of Business, Battle Creek, Michigan, and attended\nthe University of California at Berkeley majoring in business and\nmarketing.\nShe is the former owner of a dry cleaning and laundry firm in\nFullerton. She is a former president of the Hermosa Drive P.T.A.,\nco-founder of the Hermosa Community Library, and a member of the Ways\nand Means Committee of the Children's Hospital of Orange County.\nMrs. Emery, a Republican, replaces Charles M. Canning of Maywood.\nHis term has expired.\nStuart, 50, a political independent, is retired. He is a former\nassistant director of security for a department store chain in northern\nCalifornia.\nBoard members receive $28 per diem when on official business.\n# # #\nAddresses:\nRobert W. Stuart\nBetty C. Emery\n891 Las Ovejas Avenue\n2812 Sunny Wood Drive\nSan Rafael, California 94903\nFullerton, California\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-21-73\n#241\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointment of Escondido\nCouncilwoman Lorraine H. Boyce (Mrs. William D. Boyce) to replace\nSalvadore R. Flores, Ph.D., of Chula Vista, to the Child Development\nProgram Advisory Committee. Dr. Flores resigned.\nMrs. Boyce, a Republican, is a graduate of the University of\nSouthern California School of Nursing and is also a certified teacher\nin adult education. She is married to a surgeon and they have six adult\nchildren, four natural and two adopted.\nShe is a member of the Child Development Advisory Committee for\nEscondido Elementary School District and is an instructor-trainer in\nwater safety and child and maternal care classes for the American Red\nCross. She is an active leader in the First Congregational Church of\nEscondido and also is a member of numerous civic and service organizations.\nCommittee members serve at the pleasure of the governor and receive\nnecessary expenses.\n#####\nAddress:\n106 South Grape Street\nEscondido, California\nGarcia\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nImmediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-21-73\n#342\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the following bills have been signed:\nAB\n147\n-\nBurke Makes changes in the law relating to legal services\nChapter 105\nprovided to county committees on school district\nreorganization.\nAB 274 - Murphy Sets the fee for a permit to operate a temporary trailer\nChapter 98\npark at $25, with no additional fee for the lots. The\nbill also authorizes the appropriate enforcement agency\nto determine the fees for construction, mechanical and\nelectrical installations in temporary trailer parks, for\neach project, the determination to be based on the cost o:\nadministration and enforcement, including the cost of\ndetermining the amount of fees to be charged.\nAB 463 -Hayden\nAmends the Vocational Nursing Practice Act by providing\nChapter 106\nfor renewal of licenses every two years in accordance with\nlicensees' birth dates rather than requiring renewal of\nall licenses on July 31 of each even-numbered year.\nAB 479 - Wood\nPermits exclusion of part-time employees of public\nChapter 107\nagencies, other than school districts, from the federal\nsocial security system and requires member contributions\nto be paid for prior service included under the federal\nsystem.\nAB 675 - Dixon\nReduces from more than five years to more than three years\nChapter 108\nthe length of time a coroner must retain the official file\nfor each deceased person before photocopying the contents\nof the file.\nAB 880 - Thurman\nValidates the sale of certain surplus school sites by\nChapter 109\nthe Ripon Unified School District.\nSB 161-Nejedly\nAmends the County Employees' Retirement Law of 1937 to\nChapter 99\nrestrict application of a single rate of contribution\nestablished by the county retirement board to persons\nbecoming members after the rate is made operative in the county.\nSB 248 - Mills\nAuthorizes the Director of Finance to enter into an agree.\nChapter 97\nment with the State Race Track Leasing Commission and the\n22nd District Agricultural Association to advance moneys,\nas a loan, for the construction of improvements at Del\nMar Race Track. The bill appropriates $1,300,000 for the construction of\nsuch improvements.\nSB 282 -Alquist Permits the Superintendent of Public Instruction to exempt\nChapter 100\na limited number of school districts from kindergarten\nclass size and reporting requirements.\nSB\n303\n-Grunsky Establishes specified criteria to be considered by the\nChapter 101\ncourt in determining reasonable compensation and neces-\nsary expenses to be paid court-appointed counsel.\nSB 320-Lagomarsino\nRequires the Board of Administration of the Public\nChapter 110\nEmployees' Retirement System upon request of any\npublic agency, other than school districts, after an\naffirmative, secret vote of the majority of employees affected, to execute\na modification excluding coverage of part-time positions under social security.\nSB 348 -Rodda\nAuthorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction to\nChapter 102\nincrease from one to not more than five, the number of\nschool district pilot programs to determine the feasibilit\nof extending greater flexibility to students in outside class experience.\nSB 441 - Rodda\nAppropriates $110,000 from the General Fund to the\nChapter 103\nDepartment of Parks and Recreation for purposes of\narchaeological exploration of the proposed site of the\nnew Governor's mansion. The bill further provides that\nhuman skeletal remains found by the archaeological\nexploration shall be reburied in a proper location but\nnot under presently planned future structures.\nSB 471 - Alquist Appropriates $300.000 to the Department of Justice to\nChapter 104\nsettle the claim of David Anderson against the State of\nCalifornia.\n#####\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-21-73\n#343\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today hailed the U.S. Supreme Court's\ndecision on obscenity and hard-core pornography.\nIn a statement, he said:\n\"This decision is one of the most important rulings to be made\nby the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years. And, while it is long overdue,\nI am extremely gratified and pleased that a majority of the court has\nconcurred in the absolute necessity of helping local communities to rid\nthemselves of the corrupting influence of hard-core pornography.\n\"While we have not yet had an opportunity to study the decision in\ndetail, it appears that the ruling will grant the states and local\ncommunities the authority they have been seeking to move against\nobscenity and hard-core pornography. The realistic guidelines which\nhave now been established by the court will return to the local\ncommunities the right to establish their own standards for determining\nwhether such material is obscene, and will enable courts and juries to\ndeal with the problem without being subjected to the vague and confusing\nconstitutional interpretations of recent years.\n\"In effect, local communities themselves, and their courts, may now\ndetermine whether such material has serious literary and artistic value\nor whether it amounts to sheer filth as is most often the case.\n\"We can only hope and pray that this decision will go a long way\ntoward reversing the trend toward permissiveness in America. For, as the\nmajority of the justices must have recognized, the lessons of history\nclearly show that any free, civilized society which does not impose upon\nitself reasonable restraints in this area will not long endure,\n\"Pornography is a disease which can only corrupt the moral fiber,\nstrength, stability and vitality of a free people. Fortunately, the\ncourt appears to have returned to the communities of our nation the tools\nthey need to halt the spread of this disease.\"\n######\nGray\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR R ALD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nmediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-21-73\n#344\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today signed legislation (SB 441-Rodda)\nappropriating $110,000 for the archaeological exploration of the\nproposed site of the new governor's mansion I in Carmichael and to\nprovide for the reburial of any skeletal remains found on the property.\n\"I am happy to sign this measure, = Governor Reagan said, \"because\nit provides money not only for the exploration of the site but for\nthe landscaping of a suitable area to rebury any human skeletal remains\nfound. This will include proper marking of graves and, I believe, will\nuphold the dignity of the Indians who may be buried there.\"\nThe area is designated in a University of California Archaeological\nSurvey as the site of a prehistoric Indian village.\n######\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nSacramento, Californ\n95814\nMEMO 1 THE PRESS\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-22,-73\n#345\nGOVERNOR'S SCHEDULE\nJune 25, 1973\nthrough\nJuly 1, 1973\nMonday, June 25\n10:30 a.m.\nTransportation Symposium, Sheraton Universal Hotel,\nLos Angeles. Remarks.\nOvernight - Sacramento\nTuesday, June 26\nNo public appointments scheduled\nOvernight - Sacramento\nWednesday, June 27\n7:30 p.m.\nFundraising dinner for Doug Carter, Republican\ncandidate in the 12th Assembly District, Civic\nAuditorium, Stockton. Brief remarks.\nOvernight - Sacramento\nThursday, June 28\n10:30 a.m.\nPRESS CONFERENCE\nOvernight - Sacramento\nFriday, June 29\n9:30 a.m.\nBrief appearance at the State Convention of the\nCalifornia State Aerie and the California State\nAuxiliary, Fraternal Order of Eagles, Sacramento\nMemorial Auditorium. Brief remarks.\nOvernight - Sacramento\nSaturday, June 30\nNo public appointments scheduled\nOvernight - Sacramento\nSunday, July 1\nNo public appointments scheduled\nOvernight - Sacramento\n######\nGray\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nMEMO TO THE PRESS\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-26-73\nGovernor Reagan will announce what action he will\ntake on reapportionment legislation now awaiting his\nJune\nsignature or veto, tomorrow, 27, at 10 a.m. in the\ngovernor's council room.\nWe are asking that questions from newsmen be\ntomorrow\nlimited to the subject of reapportionment/(immediately\nfollowing the governor's reapportionment announcement),\nbecause the governor has scheduled a general news\nconference for the Capitol Press Corps on Thursday,\n28, at 10:30 a.m. in Room 1190.\nJune\n# # #\nGray\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nMEMO TO THE PRESS\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-26-73\nC-O-R-R-E-C-T-I-O-N - Memo to the Press dated today:\nAction on reapportionment legislation by the\ngovernor will occur June 27 (not July 27). The\ngeneral news conference is June 28 (not July 28).\nSorry!\n# # #\nGray\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-26-73\n#346\nCounty registrars around the state have now filed a sufficient\nnumber of certificated, valid signatures with the Office of Secretary\nof State Edmund G. Brown Jr. to qualify Governor Reagan's revenue\ncontrol and tax reduction initiative constitutional amendment for a\nspecial statewide election November 6, the governor's office announced\ntoday.\nBy midafternoon today the county registrars had filed a total of\n523,954 valid signatures with the Secretary of State and an additional\n42,572 signatures were expected to be filed with Brown's office by late\nin the afternoon. This would bring the total filing of certificated\nsignatures thus far by the county registrars to 566,526.\nGovernor Reagan will call a special statewide election for\nNovember 6, to allow Californians to vote on the initiative constitu-\ntional amendment, as soon as the Secretary of State confirms that the\nplan has qualified. That confirmation is expected today or tomorrow.\n520,806 valid signatures were required.\nThe governor issued the following statement when he learned that\nthe 523,954 signatures had been filed with the Secretary of State's\noffice:\n\"I am very pleased and proud that our revenue control and tax\nreduction initiative has now qualified for the statewide ballot. The\npublic acceptance and response has been magnificent, as has been the\ndiligence of thousands of volunteers all over California.\n\"The bipartisan citizens' committee, Californians for Lower Taxes,\nbroke all records for speed in qualifying this initiative. Never before\nhas a proposal been actually certified and qualified even before the\ninitial mandatory filing date.\n\"It is a proud moment for all Californians--especially those who\naccepted the challenge and responded with such speed and determination.\nAnd, I think it reflects their deep concern about the increasing tax\nsurden being imposed on them by government.\n\"The polling booth is the place where such decisions belong. The\npeople themselves should decide whether the growth of government is to\nbe slowed to a reasonable pace or whether runaway government spending is\nto continue to take an ever larger share of their earnings in taxes in\nthe years ahead. So that the people can make this decision I am calling\na special election, the first statewide special election in recent\nhistory, for next November 6.\"\n# # #\nGray\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RO ALD REAGAN.\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, Californ. 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-26-73\n#347\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today issued a special statewide election\nproclamation which officially places his revenue control and tax\nreduction initiative Constitutional amendment on the November 6 ballot.\nHere is the text of the proclamation:\n\"I, RONALD REAGAN, Governor of the State of California, pursuant\nto Sections 2601 and 3508 of the Elections Code, and Section 22 (c) of\nArticle IV of the California Constitution, hereby proclaim and order\nthat a special statewide election be held on the sixth day of November,\n1973, to submit to the qualified voters of the State of California the\nfollowing initiative measure:\n\"TAX AND EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS. Initiative Constitutional\nAmendment. Limits state expenditures; restricts use of defined surplus\nrevenue to tax reductions, refunds, or emergencies. Eliminates personal\nincome tax for lower income persons; reduces others' 1973 or 1974 tax up\nto 20 percent, from surplus, and subsequent year rates 7½ percent.\nRequires two-thirds legislative vote for new or changed state taxes.\nLimits local property tax rates except school districts'. Requires state\nfunding of new programs mandated to local governments. Provides for tax\nand expenditure limit adjustments when functions transferred. Contains\nspecial indebtedness obligation provisions. Allows local tax rate and\nexpenditure limit increases upon voter approval. If the proposed\ninitiative is adopted undefined additional financing from state sources\nin the approximate amount of Five Hundred Sixty Eight Thousand dollars\n($568,000) on a one-time basis and Two Hundred Thirty Six Thousand\ndollars ($236,000) annually thereafter will be required for state\nadministrative costs.\n\"And I do hereby offer a reward of one hundred dollars ($100) for\nthe arrest and conviction of any person who violates any of the\nprovisions of Division 15 of the Elections Code; the rewards to be paid\nuntil the total amount hereafter expended for the purpose reaches the\nsum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000).\n\"IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the\nGreat Seal of the State of California to be affixed this 26th day of\nJune, 1973.\"\nGovernor of California\n#######\nGray\nOFFICE OF\nNOR F\nALD REAGAN\nRELEAS\nIMMEDIATE\nSacramento, Californ. 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-27-73\n#348\nZenovich\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today said he is vetoing SB 195, the\nlegislation which lumps Assembly, Senate and Congressional Reapportion-\nment plans together in one bill. In announcing his veto the governor\nsaid:\n\"The real purpose of reapportionment should be to assure the people\nof proper representation based on community of interest. I realize that\nreapportionment is a difficult and complex matter and that probably no\nplan can ever be devised satisfactory to all our people in every area.\nI realize too the legitimate claim of incumbents who have won election,\nto a measure of consideration when district lines are drawn.\n\"The three bills submitted to me a year and a half ago did not meet\nthe beforementioned criteria and were vetoed by me on December 30, 1971.\nAt that time I submitted to the legislature a list of suggestions for\nmaking those reapportionment plans acceptable. A number of legislators\nexpressed agreement with my vetoes and with the proposed changes.\n\"Changes were made in the Senate plan and had it been sent to my\ndesk as a separate piece of legislation I would have signed it. Though\nsomewhat less than perfect, it did represent a sincere, bipartisan effort\nto achieve fair reapportionment. Unfortunately, the Assembly, Senate\nand Congressional plans were lumped into one bill, SB 195, giving me\nonly the choice of signing all or none.\n\"Today, therefore, I am sending a veto message to the legislature.\nThis message makes it plain that while I could have signed the Senate\nplan, the proposed redistricting of the Assembly is in such violation of\nthe basic principle of reapportionment I have no choice but to veto the\nentire bill.\n\"Here are some of the examples which can only be described as\noutright gerrymanders:\n2nd Assembly District\nA long finger reaches up the coast more than 200 miles, all the\nway from Santa Rosa to Eureka. Apparently one consideration was to in-\nclude the campus community of Humboldt State College.\n18th and 19th Assembly Districts\nThese districts are contrived for no valid reason and are a gross\nexample of gerrymandering. You will notice that the 19th Assembly\nDistrict is tied together by a narrow strand of sand,\n-1-\n#348\n29th Assembly District\nThis district stretches through five separate counties all the way\nfrom Taft until it slivers into San Jose. The mileage alone--200 miles--\nbetween the extreme ends of this district obviate any community of\ninterest.\n33rd Assembly District\nThis district includes both mountain and valley areas and results\nin an extremely odd configuration almost totally surrounding Fresno,\nwith a strange, thin sliver stretching north from near Madera almost up\nto Turlock.\n14th Assembly District\nThis district stretches from Orange and Riverside counties on the\nsouth near Corona, up to Barstow and the desert on the east, and all\nthe way across to the Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo county lines\non the west.\n49th Assembly District\nThe 49th Assembly District loops around the 50th with only a narrow\ncorridor linking the major sections of the district.\n54th Assembly District\nThis district stretches from Los Angeles and South Pasadena on\nthe west in an odd configuration all the way to the Covina-Glendora area\non the east.\n76th, 78th, 79th and 80th Assembly Districts\nThese San Diego county districts are all examples of the art of\ngerrymander and simply cannot be justified on any rational grounds.\nYou will note that the city of La Mesa, with a population of less than\n40,000, has been intersected and divided among all four districts. You\nwill wish to give special attention, I'm sure, to the 80th District\nlines which have been drawn to surround the 76th and, which cut through\nthe heart of La Mesa in a narrow corridor up into another area which is\ncompletely surrounded by the 78th and 76th.\n69th Assembly District\nThis is possibly the worst example of deliberate gerrymandering in\nthe history of California, if not the history of the United States.\nIt is the so-called Corey-dor which was drawn with only one purpose in\nmind: to insure continued incumbency.\n# # #\n-2-\nGray\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR R ALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: 1 ediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-27-73\n#349\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today vetoed SB 195, legislation which\nlumps assembly, senate, and congressional reapportionment plans together\nin one bill.\nHere is the text of the governor's veto message to the legislature:\n\"I am returning without my signature Senate Bill No. 195 of the\n1973 regular session entitled 'An Act to Repeal and Add Chapter 1\n(Commencing with Section 300000), Chapter 2 (Commencing with Section\n30100), and Chapter 3 (Commencing with Section 30200) of Division 16\nof the Elections Code, relating to Reapportionment.'\n\"The legitimate goals of reapportionment should be to achieve\nfair and equal representation in the legislature and in congress for\nall the people of California and to improve the capacity of our legisla-\ntors to represent their constituents. So called 'gerrymandering' based\non political or racial considerations is inconsistent with those goals.\nInstead of allowing such motives to distort the districting process,\nI believe the legislature should adhere consistently to such criteria as\nrelative equality of population, compactness, preservation of local\nboundaries and communities of interest, and other factors which would\nresult in districts which preserve and enhance the quality of legislative\nrepresentation.\n\"My vetoes of the redistricting plans in December, 1971, were\nbased on lack of regard for these principles. Because the proposed\nCongressional and Assembly districting measures contain no substantial\nimprovements over the 1971 proposals (indeed, many districts are even\nless defensible), I am once again impelled, in the interests of equal\nand effective representation, to veto the legislature's attempts at\nreapportionment.\n\"The Senate districts set forth in Senate Bill 195, however, have\nbeen improved since 1971. They are not subject in the same degree to\nthe criticisms of the Congressional and Assembly districts and, if I\nhad received a separate bill proposing establishment of these Senate\ndistricts, I would have signed it because of the Senate's honest effort\nduring recent months to improve the districts. This effort was an\nenlightened one in that it utilized population variations permitted in\nthe recent Virginia decision to reach its goal. On the contrary, the\nAssembly district portions of the bill took no cognizance of this\ndecision.\n-1-\n#349\nDISCUSSION OF \"CRITERIA\" FOR REDISTRICTING\n\"The principle that the legislature should be guided by standards\nor criteria in reapportioning itself and the State's Congressional\ndistricts has a long history. Article IV, Section 6 of the California\nConstitution, adopted in 1926, provided in part as follows:\nSuch districts shall be composed of contiguous territory,\nand assembly districts shall be as nearly equal in population\nas may be\nIn the formation of assembly districts no county,\nor city and county, shall be divided, unless it contains\nsufficient population within itself to form two or more districts,\nnor shall a part of any county, or of any city and county,\nbe united with any other county, or city and county, in forming\nany assembly or senatorial district.'\nArticle IV, Section 27 of the California Constitution contains similar\nprovisions for Congressional districts.\n\"During the mid-1960's, the United States Supreme Court adopted\nthe rule that the paramount consideration which should govern State\nLegislatures in redistricting themselves was the achievement of\npopulation equality between districts. Now, in the case of Mahan V.\nHowell, 410 U.S. 315, 1973, the United States Supreme Court has relaxed\nthis cold mathematical rule where state legislative, as distinguished\nfrom congressional, districting is concerned. Specifically, it held that\nthe Virginia Legislature, in drawing a redistricting plan for the lower\nhouse which respected the boundaries of local governmental subdivisions,\nwas permitted greater flexibility in population deviation between the\ndistricts. Other decisionsof the United States Supreme Court have struck\ndown racial gerrymanders.\n\"The California Legislature has set forth in Government Code\nSection 25001 the criteria which should be followed in reapportioning\ncounty supervisorial districts. That section provides that the boards\nmay consider, in addition to equality of population, the following:\n1\n(a) topography, (b) geography, (c) cohesiveness, contiguity,\nintegrity, and compactness of territory, and (d) community of\ninterest of the districts.'\n\"With the recent Mahan decision further confirming the language of\nthe California Constitution and of my veto messages of January, 1972, I\nwish to reemphasize criteria which should be considered as a basis for\na fair and equal redistricting. These are as follows:\n\"1. Districts should be as nearly equal in population as possible.\n\"2. Districts should be as compact as possible and provide easy\naccessibility between different areas in the districts.\n\"3. Districts should be composed of contiguous territory.\n\"4. District lines should follow existing county and city\nboundaries where possible.\n-2-\n#349\n\"5.\nDistricts should be composed of communities which share\ncommon historical, geographical, topographic, cultural, and other\ninterests.\n\"6. District lines should be drawn solely with regard to the\nabove criteria and without regard to race or ethnic background. District\nboundaries should not attempt to exclude or include particular ethnic\nor racial minorities in one constituency to dilute the voting strength\nof such minorities, and when such minorities exist in large communities,\nthose communities should not be carved up among several districts in\norder to proctect incumbents of another race or ethnic background.\n\"These principles improve citizen access and identification with\ntheir elected representatives, facilitate communications of representa-\ntives with their constituents, and reduce the costs of campaigns. More-\nover, these criteria preclude meandering lines which reach out in order\nto attach portions of other communities which may be many miles away and\nseparated from the heart of the district by mountain ranges or large\nexpanses of unpopulated territory, In summary, such criteria,\nconsistently applied, will produce districts which are fair to all\nCalifornians and which enhance rather than impair the representative\nprocess.\nEXAMPLES OF FAILURE OF PLANS CONTAINED IN S.B. 195 TO MEET CRITERIA.\nLACK OF EQUALITY OF POPULATION\n\"Despite some minor changes in the lines in some of the districts\nin the Congressional plan, presumably to achieve greater equality than\nthe Assembly Bill 16 plan, 22 of the districts are unchanged by S.B.\n195, and several of these still deviate from the equality of population\na good-faith effort could easily have achieved. Indeed, the difference\nbetween the smallest unchanged district and the largest exceeds 3,000\npersons.\nEven some of the altered districts are still deficient in this\nrespect. In the case of the 21st district, territory was added even\nthough the district was already overpopulated. In enother instance,\nseveral counties were combined to form three districts (the 1st, 5th and\n6th districts), but the combined populations of these counties are more\nthan 2,000 short of the number of persons required for three full district\nSuch deviations from equality diminish equal representation for the\ncitizens in overpopulated districts.\nLACK OF COMPACTNESS AND DIFFICULTY OF ACCESS\nExamples of flagrant disregard for the interests of compactness\nand ease of access are legion.\n-3-\n#349\n\"/Congressional\nDistrict 17 begins at Hillsborough in the central part of San Mateo\nCounty and runs a long and narrow corridor deep into Santa Clara County,\nthrough the city of San Jose, to the hills on the far side. Congressional\ndistrict 36, located in Kern and Kings Counties, is notable for its long,\nthin arm which reaches through sparsely populated and unpopulated\nstretches of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties to attach the\npopulation around the campus of the University of California at Santa\nBarbara. Congressional District 42, based in central San Diego County\nand including parts of the City of San Diego, runs in an irregular pattern\nnorth to pick up part of the community of Newport Beach in Orange County,\n80 miles away. Congressional District 43, a district based in Riverside\nand Imperial Counties, unnecessarily includes citizens from distant\ncoastal areas near the City of San Diego, and part of the City itself.\nFinally, Congressional Districts 28 and 37 in Los Angeles both include\ngrotesque appendages and meandering lines which cannot have resulted\nfrom any acceptable rationale.\n\"The changes which SB 195 made in the 1971 AB 16 plan failed to\nimprove a single one of these deficiencies. Indeed, changes to the 17th,\n28th, and 37th districts make them even less compact and more absurd than\nthey were in the 1972 versions.\n\"In the Assembly Plan, Assembly District 2 runs a long corridor up\nthe California coast, passing up nearer population along the way.\nAssembly District 29 extends all the way from the community of Taft in\nKern County to the City of San Jose in Santa Clara County, truly a\nremarkable feat of cartography. Assembly District 23 runs from the San\nLuis Obispo-Kern County line to the western San Bernardino County\ncommunities of Upland and Ontario. Assembly District 69, which has\nprobably elicited more adverse public comment than any other district,\nruns in narrow, irregular corridors along the borders of Orange and Los\nAngeles Counties. San Diego County Assembly districts 76, 78, 79, and 80\nwander through the county in jigsaw fashion, dividing the urban areas of\nthe county in an irrational manner which is bound to confuse the electorate.\n\"I cannot in good conscience conclude that these districts are fair\nin any way to the citizens placed at their extreme ends, for such\nconfigurations of districts as found in these plans are a mockery of good\ngovernment and cannot fail to impair the responsiveness and effectiveness\nof representation accorded to the citizens of the state.\n- 4 -\n#349\n\"UNNECESSARY DIVISION OF CITIES, COUNTIES AND COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST\n\"My comments in my veto message of AB 12, 1971 Extraordinary\nSession, apply with at least equal vigor to these plans also: as in\nthat plan, another major flaw in these plans 'is the blatant failure to\npay due respect to the needs and interests of the different communities\nand the political divisions in the state. The districts provided for\ncut across county and city lines, fragment other established political\ndivisions of the state, and violate the identity of innumerable\ncommunities. Again, the sole purpose seems to have been to achieve\npartisan gains.\n\"Numerous examples of divisions of local political subdivisions\ncould be cited. Congressional District 17 divides almost every city it\ntouches (revisions in this district since the AB 16 plan of 1972 have\nresulted in the division of yet another city). Congressional Districts\n23 and 34 wind tortuously through Los Angeles and Orange Counties,\ncrossing city boundaries with utter abandon and creating districts\ncomposed of widely separated fragments of cities and communities of\ninterest. Congressional District 38 substantially divides 6 of the 7\nlargest cities within its borders including Riverside, San Bernardino,\nand Pomona.\n\"Assembly District 9 reaches into the central parts of Sacramento,\nStockton and even the tiny community of Woodland. Assembly District 27\nruns a long and narrow appendage in grotesque fashion down El Camino\nReal, dividing the cities of Burlingame, San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos\nand Redwood City. Assembly districts in the eastern part of Los Angeles\nCounty seemingly pay no attention at all to community lines as they\nwander in random fashion throughout this area. Assembly District 69, of\ncourse, notorious for its absurd, contorted corridors, is also notable\nfor its division of virtually every community it touches, since few\nincorporated communities are small enough to fit within such narrow\nconfines.\n\"Again, I cannot say in good conscience that these plans pay due\nregard for the value of preserving our communities intact within the\nrepresentative structure or provide the citizens within these communities\nand immediately surrounding areas with the fair and equitable\nrepresentation to which they are entitled. Accordingly, I cannot sign\nthe bill and it is returned herewith.\"\n#####\n-5-\nGray\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RC ALD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nmmediate\nSacramento, Californi 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-27-73\n#350\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointment of\nRobert J. De Monte as director of the Office of Planning and Research\neffective July 1, 1973.\nDe Monte, 30, is presently director of the Department of Housing\nand Community Development, and is a former chief deputy director of the\nDepartment of General Services.\nIn his new position, he will supervise the staffs of the Office\nof Planning and Research, and also of the Council on Intergovernmental\nRelations and the Office of Intergovernmental Management. This\nreorganization results from changes in the 1973-74 budget.\nHis new office provides planning assistance and liaison with local\ngovernment, and serves as the planning and research staff to the\ngovernor's cabinet.\nHe succeeds John Tooker who has been appointed legislative\nassistant to the governor.\nDe Monte, a Republican, is a 1964 graduate of California State\nCollege at Hayward with a B.S. Degree in accounting. He has also done\ngraduate work in business administration at Golden State College in\nSan Francisco.\nA native of Oakland, De Monte and his wife have one child. They\nmake their home at 2607 Morley Way in Sacramento. He will receive an\nannual salary of $27,800.\n######\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR R\nALD REAGAN\nRELEASE\nImmediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-27-73\n#351\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointment of\nMrs. Marvin (Phyllis R.) Smith, Jr., of Encino as a member of the\nCalifornia Hospital Commission.\nMrs. Smith fills the vacancy created by the resignation of\nAllen J. Manzano of Sacramento.\nA Republican, Mrs. Smith is a graduate of the University of\nCalifornia at Los Angeles and has done graduate work in education at\nthe University of Southern California.\nShe is a member of the board of directors of the Valley\nPresbyterian Hospital, Los Angeles Council of National Voluntary Health\nAgencies and the Welfare Planning Council of the San Fernando Valley.\nMrs. Smith is also a member of the California State Health Planning\nCouncil.\nHospital Commission members receive $100 a day and their necessary\nexpenses when the Commission meets on official business.\n######\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, Californi\n95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-29-73\n#352\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the following bills have been\nsigned:\nAB 244-MacDonald Eliminates a duplicate Education Code provision\nChapter 116\nrelating to classified school employees.\nAB 670-Lancaster\nRequires the undersheriff, rather than the assistant\nChapter 117\nsheriff, to assume the duties of sheriff when the\noffice of sheriff is vacant. The bill requires the\nassistant sheriff to assume the duties of sheriff when\nboth the offices of sheriff and undersheriff are vacant.\nSB 52 -Gregorie\nProvides that proficiency standards established by the\nChapter 111\nDepartment of Education for school districts to measure\neligibility of individuals for exemption from compulsory\ncontinuation education may be declared operative by the\ndepartment prior to the current statutory date of\nSeptember 1, 1975.\nSB 376 - Biddle\nAuthorizes the Beaumont Irrigation District to change\nChapter 113\nits name to the Beaumont Water District.\nSB 507 - Way\nPermits bonding requirements for county agricultural\nChapter 112\ncommissioners, county librarians, and county road\ncommissioners to be satisfied by a master bond covering\nmore than one county officer, employee, or agent.\nSB 778 - Collier\nTransfers duties relating to the state accounting\nChapter 114\nsystems from the Department of General Services to\nthe Department of Finance.\nSB 906 - Coombs\nAmends the Contractors License Law by granting exemp-\nChapter 115\ntions from registration as home improvement salesmen to\n(a) sales persons whose sales are all made pursuant to\nprior negotiations between the parties at a business\nestablishment at a fixed location where goods or\nservices are offered or exhibited for sale and (b)\nsales persons whose sales are all made pursuant to\nnegotiations between the parties initiated by the\nprospective buyer at or to such a business establishment\n#####\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR\nI\nIALD REAGAN\nRELEASE\nImmediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-29-73\n#353\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointment of Robert\nM. Takasugi of Montebello as judge of the Municipal Court of the East\nLos Angeles Judicial District.\nTakasugi, a 43-year-old Democrat, will succeed Judge Myer B. Marion\nof Montebello on his retirement July 10.\nThe senior partner in a Los Angeles law firm, Takasugi has been in\ngeneral practice since 1960.\nHe is a 1953 graduate of the University of California at Los Angeles\nand earned his law degree in 1959 at the University of Southern\nCalifornia.\nA member of various law associations, Takasugi is a member of the\nJapanese-American Citizens' League, Bella Vista Optimist Club of\nMontebello, Selective Service Appeals Board, Board of Governors of the\nEast Los Angeles State Service Center, and a member of the Advisory\nCouncil to the Los Angeles County district attorney. He is also a\nhearing examiner for the Los Angeles City Police Commission.\nTakasugi and his wife Dorothy are the parents of two minor children.\nHe will receive an annual salary of $33,481.\n#####\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR I IALD REAGAN\nRELEASE\nImmediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-29-73\n#354\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointment of\nJerry W. Green, director of the state Department of Health Care\nServices, as chairman of the California Health Care Commission.\nGreen, 39, fills the vacancy created by the resignation of\nDwight M. Geduldig, new director of the state Department of Human\nResources Development. Green succeeded Geduldig as director of Health\nCare Services. He will serve as director until July 1, when Health\nCare Services becomes part of the new Department of Health.\nGreen is 1959 graduate of Sacramento State University, and is a\nformer chief deputy director of Health Care Services and the state\nDepartment of Public Health. He has also served as an auditor with the\nLocal Allocation Division in the Department of Finance.\nCommission members receive their necessary travel expenses.\n######\nAppointee's address:\nJerry W. Green\n981 Sand Bar Circle\nCarmichael, California\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR R ALD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\n1\nmediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-29-73\n#355\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointment of Paul\nF. Lawrence, deputy assistant commissioner of the Office of Regional\nOffice Coordination of the United States Office of Education as an\nassistant to his education advisor, Dr. Alex C. Sherriffs.\nLawrence, 61, will serve on loan from the U. S. Office of\nEducation.\nA resident of Sacramento, he will serve as liaison between the\neducation section of the overnor's office and the U. S. Department of\nHealth, Education and Welfare.\nLawrence is a 1935 graduate of Newark State Teachers College,\nNewark, New Jersey, with a B.S. Degree in elementary education. He\nearned his Masters (1946) and Doctorate (1947) degrees from Stanford\nUniversity.\nHe was teaching assistant in the Stanford University Department\nof Education and is a former associate professor of education at Howard\nUniversity in Washington, D.C. In addition, he has been a visiting\nprofessor of education at Virginia State College, Petersburg; Hampton\nInstitute, Hampton, Virginia; and, West Virginia State College at\nInstitute, West Virginia. He joined federal service in 1955.\nLawrence and his wife Vivian have two adult children.\n######\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR\nNALD REAGAN\nRELEASE\nImmediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-29-73\n#356\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointments of\nSonora businessmen Baci Frecceri and Walter C. Sundborg to the 29th\nDistrict Agricultural Association Board of Directors. The association\noperates the Mother Lode Fair,\nFrecceri, 52, has served on the board since February 21, 1969.\nHe is a sales representative for the California State Automobile\nAssociation.\nSundborg, 62, has served on the board since February 23, 1965.\nHe is associated with the Koalin Corporation in Sutter Creek.\nBoth men are Republicans. Board members serve four-year terms and\nreceive necessary expenses.\n#####\nAppointees' addresses:\nBaci Frecceri\nWalter C. Sundborg\nRoute 6, Box 886\nRt. 1, Box 1\nPeaceful Valley\nShell Road\nSonora 95370\nSonora 95370\nGarcia\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR :\nJALD REAGAN\nRELEASE Immediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-29-73\n#357\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointment of\nHenry H. Stone to replace John C. Weaver on the 40th District\nAgricultural Association board of directors. Both men are from\nWoodland. The association operates the Yolo County Fair.\nStone, a 42-year-old Republican, will fill the unexpired term of\nWeaver, who resigned. The term expires January 15, 1975. Stone, a\nformer cattle rancher in San Joaquin County, is manager of the Woodland\nFarm Credit Associations. He is married and is the father of three\nchildren.\nBoard members receive necessary expenses.\n#######\nAppointee's address:\nHenry H. Stone\n804 Wendell Place\nWoodland, California 95695\nGarcia\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR NALD REAGAN RELEASE:\nmediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-29-73\n#358\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointment of Mrs.\nKenneth C. (Ruth M.) Smith, of South Lake Tahoe, to the Lahonten\nRegional Water Quality Control Board. She replaces Laurel W. Ames,\nalso of South Lake Tahoe, who resigned. The term expires on September\n18, 1974.\nMrs. Smith, a Republican, is married to Dr. Kenneth C. Smith,\nwho is Mayor of South Lake Tahoe. She is a native Californian and\nattended the University of California, Berkeley, for three years. She\nis the mother of four children.\nBoard members receive necessary expenses.\n#####\nMrs. Ruth M. Smith\n743 Lakeview Avenue\nPost Office Box 3075\nSouth Lake Tahoe, California 95705\nGarci,\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR\nJALD REAGAN\nRELEAS\nImmediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-29-73\n#359\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today issued the following statement:\n\"For several months the legislature has had before it a proposal\nfor the return to the people of the one-time surplus that has accumulated\nover the last two fiscal years. For several months the majority\nleadership has been sitting on this matter with no attempt to reconcile\ndiffering viewpoints.\n\"During these several months and in these past several days, I have\nasked that they at least settle the matter of delaying the scheduled\nsales tax increase until January 1. Now, only hours away from that\nincrease going into effect and obviously taking advantage of the lack\nof any more time, they want to attach to the delay in the increase\nmatters which have no urgency time-wise and which should have been\ndebated in the normal legislative process during these past months.\nIt is a kind of irresponsible fun and games we have become used to at\nthis season of the year---it is not a proper exercise of the legislative\nprocess.\n\"The sales tax will be increased day after tomorrow unless the\nlegislature acts before then. No one can be hurt and the people can\nonly be helped by delaying the increase six months until January 1.\nAll the other matters now being attached as a price for this deferral\ncan be discussed and negotiated in the months to come. There is no\ntime urgency to plans for returning the balance of the surplus to the\npeople.'\n######\nGray\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-29-73\n#360\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today accused Assembly Speaker Bob Moretti\nof singlehandedly sabotaging and killing legislation to delay a\nscheduled one-cent increase in the sales tax / and return up to 35 per-\ncent of this year's state income tax to the people.\nMoretti's decision to deny both houses of the legislature an\nopportunity to vote on the governor's generous sales tax delay and\nincome tax rebate proposal left the conference committee on which\nMoretti serves one vote short of the four votes required.\nThe Assembly Speaker's decision was made in the face of assurances\nfrom three of the four members of the conference committee that they\nwould place the plan before the legislature tonight.\nThe governor's proposal would have provided persons with an\nadjusted gross income of $15,000 or less a 35 percent income tax rebate\non this year's state income tax.\nPersons with an adjusted gross income of between $15,000 and\n$20,000 would have had a 30 percent income tax rebate; those with an\nincome of $20 to $25 thousand would receive a 25 percent income tax\nrebate; and higher income earners--those with an annual adjusted gross\nincome of $25,000 or more-would have received a 20 percent rebate on\ntheir 1973 state income tax. This would have been in addition to the\nsix month, deferral of the one-cent sales tax increase scheduled to go\ninto effect Saturday night at midnight.\nAs a result of the Assembly Speaker's decision, the governor said\nhe had no choice but to veto a phoney bill offered by Senator Walter\nStiern which did not represent any compromise at all.\nThe governor said:\n\"Speaker Moretti's refusal to give the legislature even an oppor-\ntunity to vote on the compromise measure I have proposed shows very\nclearly that he has severely misused his power as Assembly Speaker\nagain.\n\"His action indicates his utter contempt for not only the\nlegislative process but for the people of California themselves who,\nbecause of his duplicity and tardiness in the entire matter of returning\nthe surplus, will be faced with a sales tax increase of one cent on\nSunday.\n-1-\n#360\n\"He has attempted to avoid any blame for this by proposing a\nthoroughly phoney so-called compromise which he knew could not become\nlaw. He has known for months that I simply could not sign the kind\nof legislation he proposed.\n\"The real reason he decided not to let the legislature vote on\nour proposal is because he does not want to return the state's current\none-time surplus to the people at all, even though it is an overcharge\nand should be returned.\n\"But despite his refusal to do this, I intend to continue to\npropose ways to give back the surplus to all of the people.\n\"If, on November 6, the voters pass our initiative to reduce\ntaxes, including a 20 percent rebate of this year's income tax and a\n7½ percent ongoing income tax cut starting next year, I will continue\nto propose additional measures to return the remainder of the surplus\nto the taxpayers.\n\"Finally, I want to put every Californian on notice that on Sunday\nwhen the state's sales tax goes up one cent on the dollar, they should\nremember that it was one man, Assemblyman Bob Moretti, who made that\nincrease necessary. I have personally tried every means at my disposal\nas governor to keep that from happening in the spirit of compromise\nover these last six months. Yet, at the very last moment, Mr. Moretti\nhas seen fit to dash all our hopes for a reasonable agreement.\n\"The sales tax increase now rests squarely and solely on Assembly\nSpeaker Bob Moretti's shoulders,\" the governor said.\n# # #\n-2-\nGray\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR F ALD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-30-73\n#361\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced that the following bills\nhave been signed:\nAB 346 - Mobley\nExempts nectarines shipped out of state for processing\nChapter 127\nfrom the packing and marking requirements of the Food\nand Agricultural Code otherwise required for nectarines\nshipped as fresh fruit. The fruit shipped under this\nexemption must meet the basic quality requirements\nestablished for nectarines and may only be shipped\nunder a permit issued by the county agricultural\ncommissioners. The bill also authorizes establishment\nof a charge to cover the cost of issuing the permit.\nAB 423 - Bagley\nProvides that the provisions transferring boards\nChapter 122\nrelating to the healing arts from the Department of\nConsumer Affairs to the Department of Health, operative\nJuly 1, 1973, shall not become operative until July 1,\n1977.\nAB 432 - Seeley\nExtends from January 1, to June 30, 1973, the date by\nChapter 123\nwhich documents relating to certain boundary changes\nin a school district must be filed with government\nagencies for assessment and tax purposes during the\n1973-74 fiscal year.\nAB 893 -MacDonald Provides for a maximum authorized property tax rate in\nChapter 128\nzone 1 of the Ventura County Flood Control District of\n38 cents per $100 of assessed valuation until July 1,\n1975, at whi time such maximum rate reverts to 20 cents\nAB 897 - Arnett\nUpdates existing laws to provide for a general\nChapter 124\nvalidation of apportionments that had become final\nunder the State Building Aid Law prior to January 1,\n1974.\nAB 2533 - Briggs\nIncreases, for the purpose of specified policies of\nChapter 125\ngroup life insurance, the age limit for covered\ndependent children from 20 years through 22 years of\nage in certain circumstances.\nSB 180 - Marler\nIncludes within the definition of \"common trade or\nChapter 118\nbusiness,\" for purposes of group workmen's compensation\ninsurance policies, specified operations in logging,\nsawmills, and related wood products operations and\nmanufacturing operations.\nSB 316 - Song\nAllows proceedings to incorporate an area to be started\nChapter 119\nby a petition of 25 percent of the registered voters\nof such area rather than by landowners only.\nSB 451 -Gregorio\nSpecifies that, notwithstanding any other provisions of\nChapter 126\nlaw, cities in San Mateo County incorporated after\nApril 1, 1971, but before May 31, 1971, shall not be\nsubject to specified planning provisions until June 30,\n1974.\nSB 594 Marler\nExtends the date for adoption of the conservation ele-\nChapter 120\nment and the open space element of city and county\ngeneral plans from June 30, 1973, to December 31, 1973.\nIt also requires that zoning be consistent with the\ngeneral plans by January 1, 1974. It would provide\nfurther that beginning on January 1, 1974, no mandatory\nelement of a general plan may be amended more than three\ntimes per year, that hearings on zoning changes to\nbring the zoning into conformity with changes in general\nplans could not be held within two weeks of the change\nin the general plan, and that a zoning ordinance must\nbe amended within a reasonable time after it becomes\ninconsistent with a general plan by reason of a change\nin the general plan.\nSB 1351-Lagomarsino Continues the existence of the Commission for\nChapter 121\nEconomic Development until January 1, 1976.\n######\nWalthall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RO LD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Ir ediate\nSacramento, Californi\n95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary 95814\n916-445-4571\n6-30-73\n#362\nThe following items have been blue-pencilled by Governor Reagan:\nItem 17\nFor support of Supreme Court of California, Courts of Appeal,\nJudicial Council of California and Commission on Judicial\nQualifisations. I reduce this item from $11,033,249 to\n$10,627,872.\nI am approving this item as originally submitted as well as\n$504,666 of the $910,043 added by the Legislature. The\nbalance of $405,377 is disapproved pending a report by a\nspecial task force which I am appointing to study the appellate\ncourt workload.\nItem 47\nFor support of contribution to counties for providing legal\nassistance to indigents. I reduce this item from $2,428,955\nto $775,000.\nI am eliminating the augmentation provided by the legislature\nin view of the enactment of Chapter 1406/72 which provides\nthat the state shall reimburse local governments for added\ncosts resulting from state mandated new programs or increases\nin the level of existing programs. This new law will greatly\nassist local governments as will federal revenue sharing.\nAccordingly, the budget level of support which has been the\nappropriated level for many years is considered to be adequate.\nItem 57\nFor support of Board of Equalization. I reduce this item from\n$28,486,525 to $28,376,621 by reducing paragraph (a) Personal\nServices from $30,753,156 to $30,653,243 and paragraph (b)\nOperating Expenses and Equipment from $7,138,607 to $7,128,616.\nI am eliminating from this item $109,904 which was added to\nincrease the board's intercounty equalization program. There\nremains in this item sufficient funds for the Board to meet\nits responsibilities in this area.\nItem 60\nFor support of Secretary of State. I reduce this item from\n$2,635,784 to $2,526,817 by reducing paragraph (a) Personal\nServices from $1,707,115 to $1,609,610 and paragraph (b)\nOperating Expenses and Equipment from $650,767 to $639,305.\nI am reducing this item to a level of expenditure that provides\nfor an augmentation of 9.4 positions to the Secretary of State's\noriginal budget in the Corporate Filing and Uniform Commercial\nCode Divisions. Coupled with the 5 proposed new positions in\nthe original budget, this represents a 21 percent increase in\nthe staff of these two divisions. This amount will enable the\ndepartment to meet its responsibilities.\nItem 70\nFor support of Public Utilities Commission. I reduce this\nitem from $7,652,847 to $7,622,847 by reducing paragraph (b)\nOperating Expenses and Equipment from $2,466,908 to $2,436,908.\nI am eliminating the funds added for Consulting Services for\nBART.\nThe commission has assured me that the budget contains\nsufficient funds to provide an adequate review of BART safety\noperations without augmentation.\nItem 86\nFor support of Augmentation for Salary Increase---Increase in\nStatutory Salaries. I reduce this item from $92,121,000 to\n$92,083,000 by reducing the proposed salary increase specified\ntherein for state officers whose salaries are specified by\nstatute and whose compensation is paid from the General Fund,\nfrom 15.9 percent to 12.5 percent.\nThe increase of 15.9 percent was originally suggested to the legislature\nby the administration to keep the two-year increase in statutory salaries\nlevel with increases granted the vast majority of state employees. The\nadministration later revised its request to 12.5 percent, approximately\nthe average level of increases for state employees for the coming year.\nThe request to reduce the salary increase for statutory officers was re-\nceived by the legislature too late to act upon and I am accordingly re-\nducing this item to 12.5 percent which I consider to be adequate.\n-1-\n#362\nItem 87\nFor support of Augmentations for Salary Increase---Increase\nin Statutory Salaries. I reduce this item from $58,575,000\nto $58,564,000 by reducing the proposed salary increase\nspecified therein for state officers whose salaries are\nspecified by statute and whose compensation is paid from\nspecial funds, from 15.9 percent to 12.5 percent.\nThe increase of 15.9 percent was originally suggested to the\nlegislature by the administration to keep the two-year increas\nin statutory salaries level with increases granted the vast\nmajority of state employees. The administration later revised\nits request to 12.5 percent, approximately the average level\nof increases for state employees for the coming year. The\nrequest to reduce the salary increase for statutory officers\nwas received by the legislature too late to act upon and I\nam accordingly reducing this item to 12.5 percent which I\nconsider to be adequate.\nItem 88\nFor support of Augmentations for Salary Increase---Increase\nin Statutory Salaries. I reduce this item from $32,844,000\nto $32,831,000 by reducing the proposed salary increase\nspecified therein for state officers whose salaries are\nspecified by statute and whose compensation is paid from non-\ngovernmental cost funds, from 15.9 percent to 12.5 percent.\nThe increase of 15.9 percent was originally suggested to the\nlegislature by the administration to keep the two-year increas\nin statutory salaries level with increases granted the vast\nmajority of state employees. The administration later revised\nits request to 12.5 percent, approximately the average level\nof increases for state employees for the coming year. The\nrequest to reduce the salary increase for statutory officers\nwas received by the legislature too late to act upon and I\nam accordingly reducing this item to 12.5 percent which I\nconsider to be adequate.\nItem 92\nFor Claim of the Secretary of the State Board of Control.\nI reduce this item from $133,388 to $123,388.\nThe claim of Computer Mailing, Inc. and Tsuruda and Reed in\nthe amount of $10,000 is currently before the courts and I\ndo not believe it advisable to include the claim in the Budget\nAct at this time.\nItem 118.1 For support of Department of Consumer Affairs, Division of\nConsumer Services. I eliminate this item.\nI am eliminating this General Fund support item because the\nDivision of Consumer Services serves the Special Fund\nconstituent boards, bureaus and commissions of the Department\nand should be supported by special fund assessments rather\nthan the General Fund.\nItem 122\nFor support of Bureau of Automotive Repair, Department of\nConsumer Affairs. I reduce this item from $2,634,502 to\n$2,424,139 by reducing paragraph (a) Personal Services from\n$1,182,765 to $972,402.\nI am reducing this item to the level originally submitted\nsince there are sufficient funds budgeted to handle the\nprojected workload and meet the important program needs of\nthe Bureau.\nItem 154.1 For support of the Uninsured Employers Fund. I eliminate\nthis item.\nI am eliminating this augmentation from the General Fund for\ntransfer to the Uninsured Employers Fund. Legislation which\nset up the latter fund was signed with the anticipation that\nthe Uninsured Employers Fund would be self-supporting. It\nwas never expected to be a burden on the General Fund and I\nam asking the department to seek legislation which will make\npossible the original concept of a wholly self-supporting\nactivity.\n-2-\n#362\nItem 194 For support of Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. I reduce this\nitem from $100,000 to $50,000.\nI am reducing this item to the amount proposed in the budget I\nsubmitted in January which I believe will be adequate for the\nstate to meet its own commitment to supplement the support of\nthe planning agency.\nItem 195.5 For support of the California Coastal Zone Conservation\nCommission and Regional Coastal Zone Conservation Commission.\nI eliminate this item.\nI am eliminating this item because I believe the continuing\nappropriation made from the Bagley Conservation Fund by\nProposition 20 is sufficient to meet the needs of the Commis-\nsion during the 1973-74 fiscal year. It will be appropriate\nto review the total operational program of the Commission at\nthe time the 1974 budget is reviewed.\nItem 197\nFor support of the Environmental Protection Program, Resources\nAgency and Business and Transportation Agency. I reduce this\nitem from $2,092,820 to $1,712,820.\nI am eliminating the $30,000 for the Joice Island walkway,\n$250,000 for Conservation Education, and $100,000 for a study\nof kelp as unnecessary augmentations of programs that already\nare adequately provided for in the budget. With respect to the\nproposed $250,000 augmentation for Conservation Education, I\nbelieve it is premature, since the administrators of the\nProgram and the Department of Education are now negotiating\ntoward a coordinated funding of conservation education efforts\nby the Department and the Program. I expect to propose such\ncoordinated funding on behalf of the Program in my budget\nmessage next year.\nItem 197.8 To Department of Education for School District Environmental\nLand Acquisition. I eliminate this item.\nI have eliminated this item because there already are sufficient\nfunds for this purpose in Item 197 of this Budget Act.\nItem 214\nFor support of State Lands Division, State Lands Commission,\nDepartment of Conservation. I reduce this item from $2,468,177\nto $2,374,600 by reducing paragraph (a) Personal Services from\n$2,964,753 to $2,874,970 and paragraph (b) Operating Expenses\nand Equipment from $650,852 to $647,058.\nI am reducing this item because most of the inventory of state\nlands which this amount provides for is being accomplished\nwithout the need for an augmentation, and funds for the re-\nmaining work should be available in the budget of the state\ndepartment which will receive the services. I am, however,\nstill allowing a total augmentation of $517,000 to the original\nbudget I submitted.\nItem 215\nFor support of Department of Fish and Game. I reduce this\nitem from $22,188,029 to $21,514,121 by reducing paragraph\n(a) Personal Services from $14,845,307 to $14,486,624 and\nparagraph (b) Operating Expenses and Equipment from $8,034,162\nto $7,923,062, paragraph (d) Minor capital outlay from $372,600\nto $307,600, paragraph (e) Pittman-Robertson program from\n$2,711,200 to $2,643,100, paragraph (f) Dingell-Johnson program\nfrom $916,500 to $909,500, paragraph (h) Anadromous Fish Act\nprogram from $697,300 to $456,600 and paragraph (m) Federal\nreimbursements from $3,311,675 to $3,135,000.\nI am reducing this item because there are insufficient funds in\nthe Fish and Game Preservation Fund to fully finance the\ndepartment's approved programs together with these additions.\nWe requested the legislature to make this reduction on March\n1, 1973, a request which was not acted upon. I am now reducing\nthe item to maintain the financial integrity of the fund.\n-3-\n#362\nItem 227\nFor support of Department of Parks and Recreation. I reduce\nthis item from $24,520,537 to $24,470,537 by reducing\nparagraph (b) Operating Expenses and Equipment from $8,420,205\nto $8,370,205.\nI am eliminating the funds provided to employ an outside\nconsultant for an independent review of acquisition practices.\nThese practices already are well defined and have been subject\nto review to such an extent that any further expenditure of\nfunds for such a purpose would be nonproductive.\nItem 227.2 For support of Department of Parks and Recreation for\nfeasibility study of a park site at Baldwin Hills Dam. I\neliminate this item.\nI am eliminating this item because additional staff resources\nhave been provided to adequately meet the needs of the\ndepartment. The additonal staff will enable the department\nto develop the necessary feasibility studies.\nItem 237.5 For support of Child Development Programs and Child Care\nServices, Office of Educational Liaison, Health and Welfare\nAgency. I eliminate this item.\nThe federal funds available and allocated for child development\nprograms and child care services are sufficient to allow for\nplanned expansion of these programs.\n-4-\n#362\nItem 243\nI eliminate the subschedule set forth under Schedule (a).\nThe subschedule infringes upon my constitutional and statu-\ntory authority to organize, reorganize, classify and arrange\nthe functions of officers and employees of a state agency\nunder Section 3 of Article III and Section 6 of Article V\nof the State Constitution and Section 11152 of the Govern-\nment Code; as such, the subschedule constitutes a subject\nof legislation outside the scope of the Budget Act.\nIn addition, the subschedule infringes upon my constitutional\nauthority to eliminate or reduce specific budget items,\nimpairs the state's ability to utilize available federal\nfunds, would severely limit current programs and would make\ncompliance with federal law impossible.\nFor these and other reasons, I eliminate the subschedule as\ninvalid language and surplusage.\nItem 251\nFor support of Board of Medical Examiners. I reduce this\nitem from $2,246,190 to $2,096,190.\nI am reducing this item for Mexican medical student scholar-\nships by $150,000. Because Mexican student enrollment is\nnot as great as was previously expected, the legislature's\nbudget augmentation will not be needed.\nItem 262.2 For support of Department of Health - Citizens' Advisory\nCouncil. I eliminate this item.\nThe Citizens' Advisory Council provides advice and assist-\nance to the Director of Health. The Department of Health\ncan provide staff as needed to support the work of the\ncouncil. Therefore I am eliminating the item.\nItem 264\nFor transfer of the Health Care Deposit Fund to provide for\nMedical Assistance Program expenditure. I reduce this item\nfrom $621,728,766 to $603,184,575.\nI have reduced the funds for caseload expenditures by\n$18,544,191 in accordance with the revised estimates of\nthe Department of Health, as reported to the legislature in\nMay of this year.\nItem 270.5 For support of Human Resources Development, Migrant Day\nCare. I eliminate this item.\nThe federal funds already available and allocated for Migrant\nDay Care programs are sufficient to allow for the continua-\ntion of this service and there is no need for any additional\nGeneral Fund monies. Therefore, I am eliminating the item.\nItem 277\nFor support of Department of Social Welfare - Unmet Shelter\nNeeds. I reduce this item from $1,500,000 to $750,000.\nI have reduced this item by $750,000 because the pending\nimplementation of federal legislation (EN 1) makes this\nexpenditure unnecessary. The remaining $750,000 will\nadequately fund the program until it is taken over by the\nfederal government on January 1, 1974.\nItem 278\nFor support of Department of Social Welfare - Homemakers'\nServices. I reduce this item from $16,863,125 to $13,868,200.\nI have reduced the funds for caseload expenditures by\n$2,994,925 in accordance with the revised estimates of the\nDepartment of Social Welfare as reported to the legislature\nin May of this year.\nItem 281\nFor support of Department of Corrections. I reduce this\nitem from $135,699,642 to $134,721,317.\nI am eliminating a $250,000 augmentation for the Inmate Wel-\nfare Fund because the current method of providing recrea-\ntional equipment and supplies is both adequate and satisfactory.\nIn addition, I am reducing the item by another $728,325 for inmate\nrelease funds because an increase in the minimum release funds, from\n$68 to $200, will still be permitted for each inmate who leaves prison.\n-5-\n#362\nItem 281.1 For support of Department of Corrections. I reduce this\nitem from $500,000 to $100,000.\nI am reducing the augmentation for contracting with private\nagencies to provide correctional services to inmates by\n$400,000 until present programs may be identified and\nevaluated for their effectiveness. The amount of $100,000\nis adequate to seek and evaluate new programs to assist\ninmates.\nItem 281.2 For support of Department of Corrections. I eliminate this\nitem.\nThe Department of Corrections currently operates four com-\nmunity correctional centers which are supported by state\nfunds. A fifth center was recently opened under a federal\ngrant for research and evaluation. Additional centers\nshould not be established until results of the federal study\nare known. Therefore, I am eliminating this augmentation\nof $600,000.\nItem 281.3 For support of Department of Corrections. I eliminate this\nitem.\nI am eliminating the augmentation of $300,000 for employment\nof additional correctional counselors pending evaluation of\nthe usage of correctional program supervisors recently\nintroduced to institutions.\nItem 285.1 For support of Department of the Youth Authority. I reduce\nthis item from $300,000 to $100,000.\nI am reducing the augmentation for contracting with private\nagencies for correctional services to wards and parolees\nby $200,000 until programs may be identified and evaluated\nfor effectiveness. This remaining $100,000 augmentation,\nplus currently available funds, is adequate to seek and\nevaluate new programs to assist wards and parolees.\nItem 285.2 For support of Department of the Youth Authority. I elimin-\nate this item.\nThe Department is presently operating several structured\nresidential programs. There is no clearly demonstrated\nneed for additional funds. Therefore, I am eliminating\nthis $400,000 item.\nItem 285.3 For support of Department of the Youth Authority. I elimin-\nate this item.\nI am eliminating this augmentation of $500,000 because there\nis insufficient data available to support the contention that\nreduced caseloads for parole officers contribute signifi-\ncantly to public safety. Until such research has been\ncompleted, existing parole agent caseloads should be\nmaintained.\nItem 297\nFor support of Department of Education. I reduce this item\nfrom $7,682,263 to $7,655,263 by reducing paragraph (a)\nPersonal Services from $18,164,124 to $18,146,124 and para-\ngraph (b) Operating Expenses and Equipment from $11,172,181\nto $11,163,181.\nI have eliminated the school nurse consultant and related\nexpenses. There is no evidence that increased consultation\nor technical assistance from the state is needed.\n-6-\n#362\nItem 297.1 For augmention of Department of Education, Superintendent\nof Public Instruction and State Board of Education. I re-\nduce this item from $2,101,559 to $1,500,000 by reducing\nparagraph (a) Personal Services from $1,398,450 to $1,000,000,\nand paragraph (b) Operating Expenses and Equipment from\n$700,792 to $497,683.\nThe intention of this augmentation was to replace federal\nfunding under ESEA Title V. There are many worthwhile\nprograms, such as evaluation of year-round schools, state-\nwide testing and Mexican-American liaison funded through\nthis money, and I am approving sufficient funds to be sure\nthat all the highest priority services will not be discon-\ntinued if federal funds are withdrawn. However, I have\nreduced the total by $601,559 because I do not believe the\nstate can assume every program which will no longer be\nfederally funded. I believe the department must eliminate\nprograms of lowest priority and strive for greater economy.\nItem 302\nFor support of Division of Libraries, Department of Education\nand Board of Library Examiners. I reduce this item from\n$2,294,760 to $2,097,198 by reducing paragraph (a) Personal\nServices from $2,240,073 to $2,127,091 and paragraph (b)\nOperating Expenses and Equipment from $6,869,657 to\n$6,785,077.\nThe workload of the interlibrary loan, handicapped unit,\ndoes not justify the augmented amount in this item. However,\nfour additional positions are needed to perform necessary\nservices. Therefore, I am reducing this item only by the\namount of the excess augmentation.\nItem 307\nCompensatory education, special teacher employment programs,\ndemonstration programs in reading and mathematics and pro-\nfessional development and program improvement, Department of\nEducation. I reduce this item from $11,138,000 to\n$10,818,000.\nI have eliminated funding for the Research and Teacher\nEducation Projects at the University of California, Los\nAngeles. My agreement to continue funding of this project\nin 1972-73 did not anticipate that the project would be\ncontinued in 1973-74.\nI also have eliminated the $220,000 augmentation for an\nUrban-Bilingual Professional Development Center project.\nSufficient funding and flexibility were included in the\nDepartment's support budget submitted to the legislature in\nJanuary to allow the department to fund this project on a\npriority basis.\nItem 308.1 For the support of Chapter 638, Statutes of 1972, Depart-\nment of Education. I reduce this item from $515,000 to\n$355,000.\nI have included sufficient funding in this item for the\ncontinuation of this project through 1973-74, at which time\na final evaluation will be completed and the project will\nbe discontinued as a state-funded program.\nFunds remaining in the item provide for:\na. Continuation of the 50 classes which are now being\nevaluated.\nb. Evaluation, including a formal interim report in January\n1974 and a final report in June 1974.\nC. Continuation of 20 classes which are not now being\nevaluated.\nItem 308.2 For pilot cooperative improvement and dropout prevention\nprograms. I eliminate this item.\nThis appears to be a program more properly funded in the\nDepartment of Youth Authority. I therefore have asked the\nDepartment to begin negotiations for the pilot project from\ntheir support budget.\n-7-\n#362\nItem 309.5 For Chilaren's Centers Programs, Department of Education.\nI reduce this item from $23,113,233 to $5,828,550 by elimin-\nating paragraph (a) Children's Centers ($6,750,000) and\nparagraph (c) campus children's centers ($2,025,000), and\nreducing paragraph (b) Preschool education from $14,338,233\nto $5,828,550.\nThe federal funds available and allocated for child develop-\nment programs are sufficient to allow for the planned expan-\nsion in the children's center programs and there is no need\nfor General Fund contingency funding.\nNew federal regulations are likely to cause large funding\nreductions in the Preschool Education Program. It is not\nmy intention for the state to automatically assume financial\nresponsibility for previously federally funded programs\nwithout a thorough review.\nFunds which remain in this item, together with state funds\nin Item 309 (c), will allow the Preschool Education Program\nto continue for six months while this administration studies\nthe program and develops stronger regulations through the\nlegislative process.\nItem 310\nFor assistance to public libraries, Division of Libraries,\nDepartment of Education. I reduce this item from $1,355,000\nto $1,000,000.\nI cannot support the full augmentation suggested by the\nlegislature, but I am leaving $200,000 in this item over\nand above the amount originally proposed in my budget sub-\nmitted in January. As proposed by the Legislative Analyst,\nI believe that a revised allocation system could provide\nfor more effective use of the taxpayers' money.\nItem 316\nFor support of University of California. I reduce this item\nfrom $399,365,749 to $397,890,749.\nI reduce this item for the following reasons:\nPrice Increase\n-$350,000\nI am approving an augmentation of $1,650,000 for this\npurpose.\nExtended Opportunity Program\n-$1,000,000\nThe University has a successful Educational Opportunity\nProgram. Existing resources are sufficient to finance\nover eight percent of its undergraduate enrollment in the\nprogram which, I believe, is sufficient.\nResidencies for Primary Care\n-$125,000\nThe University originally intended to admit 104 additional\nresidencies for the 1973-74 year. However, they have cur-\nrently enrolled 78 and it does not appear that this number\nwill substantially increase by September. I am therefore\nproportionately reducing this item.\nItem 316.4 For support of University of California instructional pro-\ngrams in health sciences affected by Federal budget\nreductions. I reduce this item from $1,834,000 to\n$1,031,000.\nI have accepted that part of the augmentation suggested by\nthe legislature which would fund the two highest priorities\nin this item, $820,000 for programs in the field of public\nhealth and $211,000 for the program in family practice\nmedicine at Sonoma and the special program to train nurse\npractitioners at UCLA. In addition, the University has\nover $470,000 in carryover funds from the current year\navailable for funding of these items. The remaining lower\npriority items which I have deleted may be funded from the\nUniversity's support budget if they are deemed of higher\npriority than other currently supported activities.\n-8-\n#362\nItem 316.5 For replacement of Federal Fund Reductions, University of\nCalifornia. I reduce this item from $1,098,000 to $600,000\nby reducing paragraph (a) Bankhead-Jones Funds from\n$166,000 to $91,000, paragraph (b) Hatch Act and McIntire-\nStennis Act Funds from $404,000 to $228,000, paragraph (c)\nSmith-Lever Act Funds from $146,000 to $81,000 and paragraph\n(d) Sea Grant College Program from $182,000 to $ 0.\nI am reducing this item by $498,000 because I believe there\nwill be sufficient funds to maintain the 1972-73 University-\nwide student-faculty ratio in those programs receiving fund-\ning from a through c above and to finance the operation of\nthe research ship. The administration is supporting\nlegislation, already introduced, which would provide sub-\nstantial money for sea grants. If passed, a portion of this\nmoney would be available to the University.\nItem 316.12 For research in mosquito control, University of California.\nI eliminate this item.\nThe budget as originally submitted contained $300,000 for\nmosquito research. In addition I am approving another\n$100,000 for this purpose in Item 316. I believe this will\nprovide ample funds for this purpose.\nItem 323\nFor support of Trustees of the California State University\nand Colleges and the California State University and\nColleges. I reduce this item from $407,156,252 to\n$405,647,372 by reducing paragraph (a) Personal Services\nfrom $402,254,625 to $402,206,052 and paragraph (b) Operat-\ning Expenses and Equipment from $89,842,549 to $88,382,242.\nI am reducing this item for the following reasons:\nReplacement Equipment\n$1,000,000\nFunds to accomplish replacement of equipment can\nbe made available by the trustees without approval\nof the Department of Finance from excess salary\nsavings, as provided in Section 28.7 (a) of the\nBudget Act.\nEducational Opportunity Programs\n428,880\nOf the $1,408,880 legislative augmentation to the\nprogram, I am approving $980,000 in the budget.\nThis will provide $580,000 in grants for 2,416\nthird and fourth-year students and $400,000 in\ngrants and related staffing needs to increase\nthe number of lower division students covered\nto 4,220 (fulltime equivalent) students.\nPlanning Funds for Year-Round Operation\n50,000\nSubstantial amounts have been spent in previous\nyears on planning for year-round operations at\nCalifornia State University, San Francisco.\nWith the decline in the level of enrollment\ngrowth in the California State University and\nCollege System, these additional planning funds\nare not needed.\nSan Diego Educational Television\n30,000\nSufficient funds already are provided in the\nbudget to cover operations for instructional\nprograms on the campus. The funding for this\nstation will be reviewed thoroughly during\n1973-74 with the goal of developing reasonable\nfunding formulas which can be put into use be-\nginning in 1974-75.\nItem 327\nFor support of Board of Governors, California Community\nColleges. I reduce this item from $1,137,299 to $1,087,839\nby reducing paragraph (a) Personal Services from $1,587,596\nto $1,541,095 and paragraph (b) Operating Expenses and\nEquipment from $543,570 to $540,611.\nI am reducing this item which would have added an architect and a\nspecialist to the staff of the Chancellor's Office. Such capabilities\nalready exist in that organization and can be utilized to meet system-\nwide facility planning objectives.\n-9-\n#362\nItem 328\nFor Comm ity College extended oppor unity programs, Board\nof Governors of the California Community Colleges. I re-\nduce this item from $7,360,000 to $6,170,500.\nThe legislature's proposed funding for this program would\nhave increased community college EOP funds by more than\n50 percent over the current year. At present, the community\ncolleges expend 52 percent of these funds for administration\nand counseling. A large number of economically deprived\nhigh school graduates--minority and other--have, despite\ntheir handicaps, achieved at a normal or better than normal\nlevel in their high schools. These students would need only\noridinary support services in the community colleges and\nare too often overlooked when selecting for EOP grants.\nMany of the economically disadvantaged are unable to con-\ntinue their education. I am thinking of these students when\nI accept $1,056,000 of the suggested augmentation. I want\nto make the strongest plea that these dollars be used solely\nfor grants and for the achieving minority and poor students.\nItem 331.1 For support of Department of General Services for working\ndrawings, state building, San Jose. I eliminate this item.\nInformation provided by the Department of General Services\nindicates that a state-constructed building in San Jose\ncannot be economically justified at this time.\nItem 337\nI delete from Item 337 the words \"or less\". Fire, safety,\nand public health needs cannot be forecast to the exact\npenny. A maximum limitation is acceptable; an identical\nminimum is artificial and unworkable. The executive depart-\nment is best able to determine those minimum needs. I be-\nlieve that any language which mandates such spending is\nunreasonable and lacks constitutional authority.\nItem 360\nFor capital outlay, University of California. I reduce this\nitem from $12,970,000 to $12,922,000 by eliminating paragraph\n(30) Working drawings for College No. 8 Academic Unit,\nSanta Cruz Campus ($48,000).\nI am eliminating this item because the proper size of the\ncampus at the University of California, Santa Cruz, is still\nunder study. Until the future size of this campus and the\npattern of total enrollments in the universities is\nclarified, I believe it is premature to commence an addi-\ntional college on this campus.\nItem 361\nFor capital outlay, Trustees of the California State\nUniversity and Colleges. I reduce this item from\n$26,922,000 to $23,967,000 by eliminating paragraph (49)\nState College, Bakersfield, Construct Science building II\n($2,955,000).\nI am eliminating this project because it is not of suffi-\nciently high priority in the building program as specified\nby the Trustees of the California State University and\nColleges.\nSection 32.5 For support of public assistance programs, Department of\nSocial Welfare. I reduce this section from $680,332,600\nto $664,286,700.\nI have reduced the estimates for caseload expenditures by\n$16,045,900 in accordance with the revised estimates of\nthe Department of Social Welfare as reported to the\nlegislature in May of this year.\n# # #\n-10-\nGray\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, Californ\n95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-30-73\n#363\non\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today issued the following statement:\nsigning\nbudget\n\"Well, here we are again, on the late, late show.\n\"I was hoping that, for once, I might be able to sign a budget\naround the constitutional deadline -- which for the legislature was\nJune 15, but the legislature was late again.\n\"In reporting on the budget I am about to sign there has been a\ngreat deal of comment about that being the biggest in the state's\nhistory. Actually, only one-third of it is required to run state\ngovernment. The reaminder is what the state merely collects and turns\nback to local government and the public schools.\n\"But the principal reason this budget is so large is because ap-\nproximately $1 billion of it does not represent an increase in government\nspending but a transfer of cost from local government to the state. This\nbillion dollars is being returned directly to the people in the form of\nproperty tax relief - relief which millions of California homeowners\nalready are seeing reflected in their property tax bills. Only several\nyears ago, the cynics were saying such tax relief would never become a\nreality.\n\"This budget reflects the greatest one-year increase in state\nsupport for local schools ever achieved by any state in any year. The\ncritics also said that could never happen, but it has.\n\"In fact, nearly one-half of our general fund budget for the coming\nyear is devoted to the support of education in California.\n\"You'll be interested to know that state support for local schools\nis up 31 percent over last year and has increased 50 percent over the\nlast three years.\n\"Under this budget, state funding for assistance to economically\ndisadvantaged students at the California State University and Colleges\nwill more than triple (254%) what it was only three years ago.\n\"The budget also sets aside more than $85 million to beef up our\ngrowing state park system, an increasing source of pride to all Californ-\nians.\n\"Now, I know my mentioning these things must seem somewhat out of\ncharacter for me, but be assured -- I have not forgotten to bring my\nbig blue pencil and, let there be no mistake, I am going to use it in\nvetoing some $80 million out of the budget.\n-1-\n#363\n\"Nearly one-half of that is in welfare and Medi-Cal expenditures--\nmoney which is not needed because of the vastly reduced welfare caseload\nin California. In fact, because of this administration's successful\nefforts to drastically overhaul and reform welfare, there are now 318,000\nfewer persons drawing welfare in the state than when we began implementing\nthe reforms in March of 1971. Yet the truly needy on welfare are\nreceiving considerably higher grants to meet their needs than ever before.\n\"There are many other specific items in this budget which might\nbe mentioned but time does not permit.\n\"I would, however, like to put the budget in a broader and very\nserious perspective. If you think $9.4 billion is large, I invite you to\nlook down the road just 15 years when the state's budget will be five\ntimes this big. But even worse, the statewill have increased its tax\ntake from the average Californ ia wage earner's dollar by 40 percent.\n\"Our projections show that this will indeed happen unless something\nis done soon to halt this trend.\n\"The people of California will have just such an opportunity this\nNovember at the ballot box to assure that the trend toward bigger and\nmore expensive government is reversed and the tax burden they bear is\nactually reduced, by order of the Supreme law of our state, the California\nConstitution.\n\"No amount of realistic cut-squeeze-and-trim can do it. I know\nbecause we've made that a hallmark of this administration. The\ntremendous special interest pressures on the legislature to spend more\nand more of the people's money have convinced me that even the most frugal\nadministration cannot halt the trend toward a heavier and higher tax\nburden without the mandatory restraint of a tax limit.\n\"The size of this and future state budgets should put every citizen\non notice that unless they vote to limit and control government's\nappetite for the people's earnings - by constitutional decree -- it\nis only a matter of time before government will be taking most of their\nwages in taxes, if our free economic system doesn't collapse first.\n\"These are sobering thoughts. But, they are surely true.\"\n#####\nGray\n-2-\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, Californ\n95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-30-73\n#364\nStien\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today made the following statement per-\ntaining to the veto of SB 425:\n\"Last winter, when the dimensions of our tax surplus became\napparent, I proposed that we simply give the money back as nearly as\npossible to those who paid it in. This could best be done by a\nsix-month delay of the scheduled sales tax increase, and a 20 percent\nacross-the-board income tax rebate. The remainder should be spent on\nparks and beaches and to restore the Capitol building.'\n\"Although the democrat leaders said they did not favor returning\nthe surplus taxes to those who paid, Assemblyman Bagley introduced such\na bill in the Assembly, and Senator Lagomarsino introduced a similar\nbill in the Senate.\n\"Stating to us that his pending plans would require that we keep\nthe excess income taxes and begin collecting an un-needed sales tax on\nJuly 1, the Assembly Speaker killed the Bagley bill almost immediately.\nIt was then apparent that Senator Lagomarsino's bill to delay the sales\ntax and return the excess income taxes would meet the same fate at\nthe hands of the Speaker.\n\"Therefore, we included the 20 percent rebate in our tax\ninitiative for next fall, and put the parks and Capitol money in the\nupcoming 1973-74 budget. But there was nothing we could do about the\nsales tax delay without a specific bill, which the Speaker had already\nsaid he would not give us, and had confirmed this fact by killing the\nBagley bill. Still showing his constant opposition, he recently in\neffect killed the Lagomarsino bill after it had passed the Senate by\nhaving it amended, over the author's objections, to prevent the rebate\nfrom going to those who paid it.\n\"Despite all I could do publicly and privately to get him to let\nthrough a bill which would delay the sales tax increase, he remained\nadamant. A third attempt to delay the un-needed tax was then made by\nSenator Dills. The Speaker killed that, too, by refusing to let it be\nfair, though Senator Dills was willing to do SO.\n\"Finally, on the last day, loudly professing to favor a sales tax\ndelay which he alone had prevented, the Speaker allowed a deferral bill\nto pass. However, fearful that it might actually become law, and he\nwould thus be deprived of all that excess spending power, he without\n-1-\n#364\nany hearings or analysis, attached to the bill, a grossly unfair and\nunequitable provision to distribute the excess income taxes to those\nwho hadn't paid them. By thus bypassing all the legislative processes\nhe professes to revere (presumably because such a proposal could not\nhave survived public hearings), he effectively killed, for the fourth\ntime in as many months, a sales tax delay. I cannot sign this bill\nbecause in his haste to present something he could pretend was a\nlegitimate compromise attempt the bill is out of balance by $50 million.\n\"Throughout that last day, I made every attempt possible to get\nthe majority leadership of both houses to give me a simple, six-month\nsales tax delay bill. I even offered a fair and substantially more\ngenerous income tax rebate proposal which I promised would be in\nwriting and fully aired in time for 1973 tax returns.\n\"Responsible leaders of both parties, in both houses, agreed with\nme, and in the final hour of the session, reconvened the conference\ncommittee on SB 90 so that a simple amendment delaying the sales tax\nincrease could be passed. They accepted my promise that the income\ntax rebate problem would be dealt with later this year in a fair,\nresponsible, timely and open manner. Three members of the conference\ncommittee voted to delay the sales tax increase: two senators and one\nassemblyman. One more assemblyman was needed. The Speaker was a\nmember of that conference and was that vote. He refused. Thus, for\nthe fifth and last time, he personally killed the sales tax increase\ndelay measure, just as he had vowed for many months he would do.\n\"The Speaker's original purpose of imposing the un-needed sales\ntax prevailed. He knew that a fair bill, or a simple delay bill, would\nbe signed immediately, and he would be deprived of all that extra\nspending power.\n\"He has confirmed beyond doubt that much needed tax relief can\nonly be achieved by the taxpayers themselves.\n\"Therefore I must return this bill unsigned.\"\n# # #\n-2-\nGray"
}