Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564416
label
Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1967 [06/20/1967-09/28/1967]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564416
contentType
document
title
Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1967 [06/20/1967-09/28/1967]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Governor Ronald Reagan's Speeches
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564416
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
66f1cf911d8e792d
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1967
[06/20/1967-09/28/1967]
Box: P17
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
6/22
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Savramento, California
445-4571
6.22.67
DO NOT RELEASE BEFORE 6 p.m.,
Contact: Lyn Nofziger
FRIDAY, JUNE 23
(For delivery 9 p.m., Central
Daylight Time)
EXCERPTS FROM SPEECH BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
TO YOUTHING REPUBLICANS' CONVENTION
OMAHA, NEBRASKA
You are political activists or you wouldn't be here. You are
concerned with the futture and it is proper that you are because you
will spend more time there than the rest of us.
I hope you will not think me presumptious if I point out some-
thing SO obvious it is known to many of you but sometimes relegated
to a place so deep in our subconscious that it is not given consi-
deration in our policy making.
An. organization move than the collective voice of the majority
It is an entity unto i tself. It has a voice of its own. It does
not reflect the shading, the thinking, the inflection of its indi-
vidual members. In that organization voice, the listemer does not
hear that tentative "Well yes, I'll go along", or that ringing "Yes"
or "No" or even that incere "I hope we are doing right."
No one has a right to belong to an organization unless he
is willing to assume esponsibility for the manner in which that
organization's voice WALL be raised.
Within your group you have learned the political process by
practicing it in the magement of your own affairs. Your cause for
being, however, is to express viewpoints- to lend direction to a
larger stage to determine what philosophy will guide our national
destiny.
You have grown up and spent your lives in a political atmospher:
tending toward evermore involvement by government in the affairs of
the people. Your presence here indicates in interest in charting
another course. This by have in common.
I have been protessing the growth of government for a number
of years, expressing cern lest government grows CC complex as to
become unmanageable and beyond control of the people.
-2-
Daniel Webster pointed out that government always justifies its
usurpation of power on the plea of good intentions and that intention
is to better serve the people's welfare. But, he warned that, in
every generation, there are those who want to rule well--but they
mean to rule. They promise to be good masters--but they mean to
be masters.
Government tends to grow because there is always SO much that
can be done for the people. It is so easy for the dedicated public
servant to see how much could be accomplished if only he had a little
more authority and, of course, a little more money to back that author
ity.
There are today a very large number of individual grant-in-aid
programs. Each has its own set of special requirements, separate
authorizations--and appropiiations, cost-sharing ratios, allocation
formulas, administrative arrangements, and financial procedures.
This proliferation increases red tape and causes delay. It places
extra burdens on state and local officials. It hinders their compre-
hensive planning. It diffuses the channels through which federal
assistance state and local government can flow.
This was the statement to the United States Congress on March
17 by President Johnson as he announced the failure of the present
grant-in-aid system.
And then he concluded by proposing three new grant-in-aid pro-
grams.
State and local government are buried now under a mass of 400
federal aid appropriations--170 separate federal aid programs, ad--
ministered by 21 federal departments and agencies, 150 Washington
bureaus, and 400 regional offices.
No wonder the Department of Housing and Urban Development is
spending $30,000 on "a study of the means by which local governments
obtain information on federal aid".
We have to spend money to find out how to give it away.
Since 1960 we have seen the New Frontier become the Great Society
During the process the civilian bureaucracy of the federal government
two-and-one-half times as fast as potulation. Payroll
increased 7½ times and total government spending has increased 8½¹₂
times.
Somewhere a voice says "But that is due to the Vietnam war."
And it is true that defense spending since 1960 is up 68 percent
but non-defense spending is up 97 percent.
The deficits for these several years total $50 billion and the
credibility gap is almost as big. Ten months ago the President assured
us he would stay within the budget and even cut it back by some
$3 billion. Shortly after the election came the correction: spending
would be $14 billion over the budget. Six months ago came the first
prediction regarding the coming year's budget deficit: $81/2 billion.
Now they admit to $11 billion and, just in case, they're asking for
authority to accommodate a deficit of $29 billion.
I am part of government now, but I am just as fearful as I ever
was of government's capacity for growth and government's appetite for
power.
I have observed first-hand its resistance to change and the
savage anger of some when any effort is made to reduce the size of
its structure.
But I have learned also it can be reduced. Fortunately, all of
us in our administration in California were totally inexperienced; we
had not learned all the things that cannot be done.
For one thing, we set out to keep our campaign promises and
once the people got over their shock, they sort of took to the idea.
We put a freeze on out-of-state travel and reduced it 78 percent
over a comparable period last year. This 78 percent will, if continued,
amount to $1 million a year in savings.
For the first time in California the automobiles in our state
motorpools exceed the demand, and this is reflected by a 10 percent
reduction in the purchase of gasoline.
We put a freeze on hiring replacements for state employees who
retired or resigned. Without a single firing or layoff, we have
reduced the number of such employees by 7,659. And that amounts to
$50 million a year in payroll.
At no cost to the taxpayers, a private citizen organized private
industry, to work in collaboration with our state employment service,
to train and put to work the unemployed in our poverty pockets-
Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland and other cities. More than 4,000
industries have signed up and are actively engaged.
-3-
-4-
200 of the most successful business and professional men in our
state are organized into task forces giving full time to the govern-
ment for a 4 to 6 month period--taking time away from their own
occupations and professions. They are going into every agency and
department of government to show how efficiency and economy can be
brought into the management of the peoples' affairs.
Cne task force is standardizing the floor space allotted to
employees in government offices doing similar work. It's inconceiva-
ble that this has never been done in our state before.
on Tuesday last, I received the first recommendation from this
particular task force and before the day was out, on that recommenda-
tion we cancelled construction of a new, 10-story building, scheduled
to be built this summer. And the savings: million.
My predecessor had his picture printed on the state maps. This
governor's picture will not be on those maps. As a matter of fact,
there will not be any maps. And that will save $192,000.
Experienced hotel men are checking our prisons as to food buying,
menus and housekeeping practices.
Another citizens task force is doing an in-depth study of our
tax structure.
No government could possibly hire or afford the manpower now
working on a voluntary basis in our state. And all we had to do was
tell them they were needed.
I do not believe this is peculiar to California. All over
America, there are citizens who believe government is their business.
Every problem that besets us, from drop-outs to disease, from job
training to student loans, is being solved someplace in this country
by someone who did not wait for government.
We need an inter-communication system between us, and an early
warning system, so we can learn the solutions already found and
head off problems before they become federal projects.
There is a role for government, but not as a substitute for the
people.
Government's role is to lead in mobilizing the full and voluntary
resources of the people.
-5-
In California, we call this a Creative Society. This is no
retreat into the past. This is taking the dream we once had and
bringing it forth in a 20th century model. And this is a good dream,
worthy of your generation.
Early in this decade, half-way around the world, a disciple of
Ghandi's passive resistance--Pandit Nehru--lived in a world of colla-
boration--playing off east against west and believing he had the
situation well in hand. In 1962 came a rude awakening when the Red
Chinese poured across his border. Nehru promptly went into seclusion.
Reuters of London--who have known every contact in Asia for decades--
were two days in finding him and asked for an evaluation of the
situation. He gave them just eight words: "We have been out of touch
with reality."
Have we been out of touch with reality? Is this the message
of last Nov. 8th? Did a restless people--a vibrant people--express
their discontent with the tired old cliches of the 30's? Did they
tell us they were too self-reliant to sell their dreams of the
future for the dull security of the ant heap?
Young Republicans--rea the meaning of Nov. 8th very carefully.
A wind of change is blowing across our land.
Ours was no narrow partisan victory. Democrats and Independents
joined hands with us to vote against what has been going on.
They voted against going deeper and deeper into debt when we
are supposed to be more prosperous than man has ever been.
They voted against a war on poverty which poverty is losing.
They voted against the idea that we can, as a state or nation,
afford anything and everything simply because we think of it.
And because most people believe in reward for productive labor,
they voted against giving that reward to those who are able but
unwilling to work.
They voted against the idea that government must grow ever larger,
more costly, more powerful.
They voted against continuing an easy atmosphere of peace and
prosperity while some young Americans are dying in defense of
freedom.
We have reach a a turning point in time
It is our destiny-- the destiny of our party to offer a banner
for the people of all parties to follow.
Choose the colors well, for they are not in a mood to follow
the sickly pastels of expediency--the cynical shades of those who
buy the people's votes with the people's money.
Thousands upon thousands of young people today are groping for
an answer to their doubts for a meaning and a cause they can believe
in. And some are finding the wrong cause.
Perhaps all of us are out of touch with reality.
Half a million men in Vietnam depend upon a parade of ships
into Saigon Harbor for supplies. Those ships must dare the Russian-
made mines and torpedoes regularly planted in that harbor.
But we are told that, if we take those same mines and put them
in the harbor at Haiphong, the war will grow bigger, more terrible
and might even become World War III. Yet into that harbor come the
munitions that each day kill young Americans.
To the man getting killed, the war is already pretty big.
80% of those mines are Russian-made, but we are offering a
trade deal to increase Russia's industrial capacity and the press
reports we are considering buying hundreds of millions of dollars
worth of generators from Russia for our own Grand Coulee Dam.
It would be the height of folly for us to challenge the sincerity
of those who believe we can unilaterally end the cold war simply by
convincing the enemy of our good intentions, while we make no requests
that he abandon his self-announced intention of imposing his will upon
the world.
We can challenge their lack of touch with reality. Within a
one week period we have seen a war in the Mid-East begin and end,
and it did not bring on World War III.
A small nation, faced with the denial of its sovereignty--indeed,
of its very existence--reminded us that the price of freedom is high,
but never so costly as the loss of it.
Now comes reality and how to resolve the issues brought on by
the conflict. Again we have been confronted with the credibility gap.
Our omnipote : government, caught again Y surprise, was faced
with drastic and extreme alternatives. Once again indecision and
vacillation have left us with harder decisions than the ones we have
already failed to make.
We are involved in the Mid-East. We have been involved with
the Mid-East. The presence of the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean
is evidence of our involvement. The mischief-making of the Soviet
Union in that area makes it very clear that our national interest
is inextricably woven into the fabric of the problem that must be
solved.
Americans, Israelis and Arabs must find an enduring solution
to the problems of thirst and hunger of a hundred million people who
were born or migrated to that desert area.
And we should seek a long-range determination of the vital
interests of all concerned without dependency on the United Nations.
In going counter to those Americans who believe the United
States can safely rest its case with the U.N., confident of a fair
hearing--who believe that the Russians share with us a desire to
co-exist--we must not repudiate their dream of world peace, for
this is a good dream. We share that dream. It is a dream as old
as man himself.
What we do repudiate is their method of achieving that dream,
which is played against the background music of the tapping of Neville
Chamberlain's umbrella leading us to that sorry inevitable end of the
appeasement trail: the slaughter of a generation of young men.
We backed down in Laos and thought we had brought peace.
We bought Vietnam.
How long has it been since an American has spoken as did Dwight
David Eisenhower when the Red Chinese threatened the invasion of
Formosa and he bluntly replied "They' 11 have to crawl over the 7th
Fleet to do it".
And no young men died as a result of that statement.
We can--we must--we will co-exist with the communists, but only
when we can deal through a position of strength, not relying on the
hope that an enemy, increasingly able to match us in power, will
just one day undergo a change of heart and give up his Marxist dream
of imposing his wil on the world.
We can--we will--we must co-exist, but not as a timid suppli-
cant.
Co-existence must be guaranteed by strength, by our willingness
to pay the full price for freedom.
Let us present to the people clear and understandable position~
on other problems that have vered us for so long.
Because freedom is indivisible, we will take an active role
in opposing all who deny freedom to anyone because of race, religion
or national origin.
We must take the lead in guaranteeing that every citizen can
enjoy the benefits of an abundant society in proportion to his abil-
ity. But we will not tolerate those who use either civil rights or
the right of dissent as an excuse to take to the streets for riot and
mob violence--even when it is called civil disobedience.
We shall do our upmost to eliminate poverty of the genuinely
poor, but we shall deny the arrogant misuse of poverty funds for poli-
tical nest-building.
Let us oppose the use of taxation and deficit spending as a means
of controlling the economy.
In the world's richest nation we are told we could reduce
the highest crime rate by eliminating poverty. Let us say instead, the
criminal--not society--is responsible for his misdeeds and punishment
of the guilty should be swift and certain,
And above all, let us reaffirm that the national purpose is the
ultimate in freedom for the individual, consistent with law and order.
Nov
may I presume on your hospitality
you have come to a moment
of truth. You have within your power the ability to broaden the base
of the party. More than half the voters next year will be of your
age group. How much more time, how many more chances will we have?
You must decide now whether or not this cause is more important
than the possible ill-feeling coming from your contests within your
organization
whether or not grudges you may hold--bitterness from
past conflicts within this organization--are more important than this
great cause.
You must pledyε, before you leave here, y ar unitied and complete
support of the party, and of the candidates of the party once the
primaries are over.
# # #
PLEASE NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be
changes in, and/or additions to the above text. However, he will
stand by the above quotes.
# # #
-9-
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Sacramento, California
445-4571
6.22.67LOS OF CALIFORMIA
DO NOT RELEASE BEFORE 6 p.m.,
Contact: Lyn Nofziger
FRIDAY, JUNE 23
JUN 29 1987
(For delivery 9 p.m., Central
Daylight Time)
GOVT. LIBRARY PUBS. SERV
EXCERPTS FROM SPEECH BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
TO YOUNG REPUBLICANS' CONVENTION
OMAHA, NEBRASKA
You are political activists or you wouldn't be here. You are
concerned with the future and it is proper that you are because you
will spend more time there than the rest of us.
I hope you will not think me presumptuous if I point out some-
thing so obvious it is known to many of you but sometimes relegated
to a place so deep in our subconscious that it is not given consi-
deration in our policy making.
An organization is more than the collective voice of the majority.
It is an entity unto itself. It has a voice of its own. It does
not reflect the shading, the thinking, the inflection of its indi-
vidual members. In that organization voice, the listener does not
hear that tentative "Well yes, I'll go along", or that ringing "Yes"
or "No" or even that sincere "I hope we are doing right."
No one has a right to belong to an organization unless he
is willing to assume responsibility for the manner in which that
organization's voice will be raised.
Within your group, you have learned the political process by
practicing it in the management of your own affairs. Your cause for
being, however, is to express viewpoints-- to lend direction to a
larger stage--to determine what philosophy will guide our national
destiny.
You have grown up and spent your lives in a political atmosphere
tending toward evermore involvement by government in the affairs of
the people. Your presence here indicates an interest in charting
another course. This we have in common.
I have been protesting the growth of government for a number
of years, expressing concern lest government grows so complex as to
become unmanaqeable and bevond centrol of
Daniel Webster pointed out that government always justifies its
usurpation of power on the plea of good intentions and that intention
is to better serve the people's welfare. But, he warned that, in
every generation, there are those who want to rule well--but they
mean to rule. They promise to be good masters--but they mean to
be masters.
Government tends to grow because there is always so much that
can be done for the people. It is so easy for the dedicated public
servant to see how much could be accomplished if only he had a little
more authority and, of course, a little more money to back that author
ity.
There are today a very large number of individual grant-in-aid
programs. Each has its own set of special requirements, separate
authorizations--and appropiiations, cost-sharing ratios, allocation
formulas, administrative arrangements, and financial procedures.
This proliferation increases red tape and causes delay. It places
extra burdens on state and local officials. It hinders their compre-
hensive planning. It diffuses the channels through which federal
assistance state and local government can flow.
This was the statement to the United States Congress on March
17 by President Johnson as he announced the failure of the present
grant-in-aid system.
And then he concluded by proposing three new grant-in-aid pro-
grams.
State and local government are buried now under a mass of 400
federal aid appropriations--170 separate federal aid programs, ad-
ministered by 21 federal departments and agencies, 150 Washington
bureaus, and 400 regional offices.
No wonder the Department of Housing and Urban Development is
spending $30,000 on "a study of the means by which local governments
obtain information on federal aid".
We have to spend money to find out how to give it away.
Since 1960 we have seen the New Frontier become the Great Societ
During the process the civilian bureaucracy of the federal government
has grown two-and-one-half times as fast as population. Payroll
Somewhere a voice says "But that is due to the Victnam wer."
And it is true that defense spending since 1960 is up 68 percent-
but non-defense spending is up 97 percent.
The deficits for these several years total $50 billion and the
credibility gap is almost as big. Ten months ago the President assured
us he would stay within the budget and even cut it back by some
$3 billion. Shortly after the election came the correction: spending
would be $14 billion over the budget. Six months ago came the first
prediction regarding the coming year's budget deficit: $8 billion.
NOW they admit to $11 billion and, just in case, they're asking for
authority to accommodate a deficit of $29 billion.
I am part of government now, but I am just as fearful as I ever
was of government's capacity for growth and government's appetite for
power.
I have observed first-hand its resistance to change and the
savage anger of some when any effort is made to reduce the size cf
its structure.
But I have learned also it can be reduced. Fortunately, all of
us in our administration in California were totally inexperienced; we
had not learned all the things that cannot be done.
For one thing, we set out to keep our campaign promises and
once the people got over their shock, they sort of tock to the idea.
We put a freeze on out-of-state travel and reduced it 78 percent
over a comparable period last year. This 78 percent will, if continued.
amount to $1 million a year in savings.
For the first time in California the automobiles in our state
motorpools exceed the demand, and this is reflected by a 10 percent
reduction in the purchase of gasoline.
We put a freeze on hiring replacements for state employees wlo
retired or resigned. Without a single firing or layoff, we have
reduced the number of such employees by 7,659. And that amounts to
$50 million a year in payroll.
At no cost to the taxpayers, a private citizen organized private
industry, to work in collaboration with our state employment service,
to train and put to work the unemployed in our poverty pockets
Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland and other cities. More than 4,000
industries have signed up and are actively engaged.
-3-
-1-
200 of the most successful business and professional men in our
state are organized into task forces giving full time to the govern-
ment for a 4 to 6 month period--taking time away from their own
occupations and professions. They are going into every agency and
department of government to show how efficiency and economy can be
brought into the management of the peoples' affairs.
One task force is standardizing the floor space allotted to
employees in government offices doing similar work. It's inconceiva-
ble that this has never been done in our state before.
On Tuesday last, I received the first recommendation from this
particular task force and before the day was out, on that recommenda-
tion we cancelled construction of a new, 10-story building, scheduled
to be built this summer. And the savings: million.
My predecessor had his picture printed on the state maps. This
governor's picture will not be on those maps. As a matter of fact,
there will not be any maps. And that will save $192,000.
Experienced hotel men are checking our prisons as to food buying,
menus and housekeeping practices.
Another citizens task force is doing an in-depth study of our
tax structure.
No government could possibly hire or afford the manpower now
working on a voluntary basis in our state. And all we had to do was
tell them they were needed.
I do not believe this is peculiar to California. All over
America, there are citizens who believe government is their business.
Every problem that besets us, from drop-outs to disease, from job
training to student loans, is being solved someplace in this country
by someone who did not wait for government.
We need an inter-communication system between us, and an early
warning system, so we can learn the solutions already found and
head off problems before they become federal projects.
There is a role for government, but not as a substitute for the
people.
Government's role is to lead in mobilizing the full and voluntary
In California, we call this a Creative Society. This is no
retreat into the past. This is taking the dream we once had and
bringing it forth in a 20th century model. And this is a good dream,
worthy of your generation.
Early in this decade, half-way around the world, a discives
Ghandi's passive resistance- Pandit Nehru--lived in a world 01 colla-
boration playing off east against west and believing he had the
situation well in hand. In 1962 came a rude awakening when the Red
Chinese poured across his border. Nehru promptly went into seclusion.
Reuters of London-who have known every contact in Asia for decades--
were two days in finding him and asked for an evaluation of the
situation. He gave them just eight words: "We have been out of touch
with reality."
Have we been out of touch with reality? Is this the message
of last Nov. 8th? Did a restless people--a vibrant people--express
their discontent with the tired old cliches of the 30's? Did they
tell us they were too self-reliant to sell their dreams of the
future for the dull security of the ant heap?
Young Republicans--read the meaning of Nov. 8th very carefully.
A wind of change is blowing across our land.
Ours was no narrow partisan victory. Democrats and Independents
joined hands with us to vote against what has been going on.
They voted against going deeper and deoper into debt when we
are supposed to be more prosperous than man has ever been.
They voted against a war on poverty which poverty is losing.
They voted against the idea that we can, as a state or nation,
afford anything and everything simply because we think of it.
And because most people believe in reward for productive labor,
they voted against giving that reward to those who are able but
unwilling to work.
They voted against the idea that government must grow ever large
more costly, more powerful.
They voted against continuing an easy atmomphere of peace and
prosperity while Home young Americans are dying in defense of
freedom.
We have reached a turning point in time.
It is our destiny-- the destiny of our party to offer a banner
for the people of all parties to follow.
Choose the colors well, for they are not in a mood to follow
the sickly pastels of expediency the cynical shades of those who
buy the people's votes with the people's money.
Thousands upon thousands of young people today are groping for
an answer to their doubts--1 for a meaning and a cause they can believe
in. And some are finding the wrong cause.
Perhaps all of us are out of touch with reality.
Half a million men in Vietnam depend upon a parade of ships
into Saigon Harbor for supplies. Those ships must dare the Russian-
made mines and torpedoes regularly planted in that harbor.
But we are told that, if we take those same mines and put them
in the harbor at Haiphong, the war will grow bigger, more terrible
and might even become World War III. Yet into that harbor come the
munitions that each day kill young Americans.
To the man getting killed, the war is already pretty big.
80% of those mines are Russian-made, but we are offering a
trade deal to increase Russia's industrial capacity and the press
reports we are considering buying hundreds of millions of dollars
worth of generators from Russia for our own Grand Coulee Dam.
It would be the height of folly for us to challenge the sincerity
of those who believe we can unilaterally end the cold war simply by
convincing the enemy of our good intentions, while we make no requests
that he abandon his self-announced intenticn of imposing his will upon
the world.
We can challenge their lack of touch with reality. Within a
one week period we have seen a war in the Mid-Bast begin and end,
and it did not bring on World War III.
A small nation, faced with the denial of its sovereigniy--indead,
of its very existence--reminded us that the price of freedom is high,
but never so costly as the loss of it.
Now comes reality and how to resolve the issues hought on by
the conflict. Again we have been confronted with the credibility gap.
with drastic and extreme alternatives. Once again indecision and
vacillation have left us with harder decisions than the ones we have
already failed to make.
We are involved in the Mid-East. We have been involved with
the Mid-East. The presence of the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean
is evidence of our involvement. The mischief-making of the Soviet
Union in that area makes it very clear that our national interest
is inextricably woven into the fabric of the problem that must be
solved.
Americans, Israelis and Arabs must find an enduring solution
to the problems of thirst and hunger of a hundred million people who
were born or migrated to that desert area.
And we should seek a long-range determination of the vital
interests of all concerned without dependency on the United Nations.
In going counter to those Americans who believe the United
States can safely rest its case with the U.N., confident of a fair
hearing--who believe that the Russians share with us a desire to
co-exist--we must not repudiate their dream of world peace, for
this is a good dream. We share that dream. It is a dream as old
as man himself.
What we do repudiate is their method of achieving that dream,
which is played against the background music of the tapping of Neville
Chamberlain's umbrella leading us to that sorry inevitable end of the
appeasement trail: the slaughter of a generation of young men.
We backed down in Laos and thought we had brought peace.
We bought Vietnam.
How long has it been since an American has spoken as did Dwight
David Eisenhower when the Red Chinese threatened the invasion of
Formosa and he bluntly replied "They" 11 have to crawl over the 7th
Fleet to do it".
And no young men died as a result of that statement.
We can--we must--we will co-exist with the communists, but only
when we can deal through a position of strength, not relying on the
hope that an enemy, increasingly able to match us in power, will
just one day undergo a change of heart
of imposing his will on the world.
We can--we will--we must co-exist, but not as a timid suppli-
cant.
Co-existence must be guaranteed by strength, by our willingness
to pay the full price for freedom.
Let us present to the people clear and understandable positions
on other problems that have vexed us for so long.
Because freedom is indivisible, we will take an active role
in opposing all who deny freedom to anyone because of race, religion
or national origin.
We must take the lead in guaranteeing that every citizen can
enjoy the benefits of an abundant society in proportion to his abil-
ity. But we will not tolerate those who use either civil rights or
the right of dissent as an excuse to take to the streets for riot and
mob violence--even when it is called civil disobedience.
We shall do our upmost to eliminate poverty of the genuinely
poor, but we shall deny the arrogant misuse of poverty funds for poli-
tical nest-building.
Let us oppose the use of taxation and deficit spending as a means
of controlling the economy.
In the world's richest nation we are told we could reduce
the highest crime rate by eliminating poverty. Let us say instead, the
criminal--not society--is responsible for his misdeeds and punishment
of the guilty should be swift and certain.
And above all, let US reaffirm that the national purpose is the
ultimate in freedom for the individual, consistent with law and order.
Now
may I presume on your hospitality
you have come to a moment
of truth. You have within your power the ability to broaden the base
of the party. Morc than half the voters next year will be of your
age group. How much more time, how many more chances will we have?
You must decide now whether or not this cause is more important
than the possible ill-fecling coming from your contests within your
organization
whether or not grudges you may hold--bitterne from
past conflicts within this organigation--are more important than this
great
cause.
7/10
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
Sacramento, California
Contact: Paul Beck
445-4571
7/10/67
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
REMARKS OF GOVERNOR REAGAN TO FACT-FINDING CONFERENCE
ON WELFARE FRAUD
Sacramento--It is a pleasure to welcome you here today to the first
public conference on welfare fraud in California. You represent those
elements that can best decide whether there is substantial fraud and
abuse in the public assistance programs of California
One of the promises we made in our campaign last year was that,
as part of our effort to streamline welfare administration, we would
look into this problem. Our aim is to make certain that the truly
deserving on the welfare roles are not shortchanged by those whose only
claim to a welfare check is a dislike of work.
This conference is the first step toward developing a plan under
which law enforcement and welfare agencies can work together to find
and evaluate fraud in our assistance programs.
I would suggest to you that one of the most productive results of
this conference would be a definition of what actually constitutes
fraud. Lack of such a definition has been a major obstacle in combat-
ting welfare abuses.
With us today are the chairman and members of the new State Social
Welfare Board. These people have a particular role to play at this
meeting which I will discuss in a moment. First, however, let me intro-
duce them. The chairman is Mr Nelson Howard of Pasadena. Other mem-
bers are Mrs. Estella Dooley of San Francisco, Mrs. Mary Roberts Ripley
and Mr. Walter Lee of Los Angeles, Mr. Arthur Tirado of Fresno, Mr. J.
Steve Williams of San Bernadino and Mr. Walter Dolfini of Eureka.
These ladies and gentlemen from all parts of California can be an
effective team in identifying and helping to solve the problems of pub-
lic welfare.
As part of their responsibilities I am asking them today as part
of their advisory responsibilities to John Montgomery and myself, to
carry on a continuing survey of the extent of welfare fraud and abuse
in California, I am also asking them to formulate long-range Juns on
improving the use of the taxpayer's welfare dollar.
-2-
Though, as I have made it clear, we intend to weed out welfare
cheats now on California's welfare rolls, we have no intention of making
this investigation a witchhunt, or letting it be labeled as such by
those who see welfare as way of life and honest employment as something
for the other fellow.
This investigation should also clear the air as to how much wel-
fare cheating is actually going on in California. Until this is known
the question will continue to haunt and hurt the public assistance
program.
Today's conference is being held primarily to discuss the role of
the legal profession--and law enforcement-- in public welfare and welfare
fraud.
For instance, there are valid questions about legal services for
the poor, the confidentiality of the welfare rolls and the rights as
well as responsibilities of welfare applicants and recipients.
However, to carry on the emphasis on fraud, I have asked the social
welfare board to schedule public hearings throughout the state to sift
fraud charges and allegations. And I have also asked the board to
work closely with a standing committee of responsible citizens to be
designated by Spencer Williams, in order that a full and complete report
can be developed and present.
Now, because I know you mave much to do, I declare this conferenc
officially open. I know your discussions and deliberations will be of
major service to our state and to this administration.
# # #
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
Sacramento, California
RELEASE: 12 noon
Contact: Paul Beck
Thursday, July 13
445-4571
7.13.67
EXCERPTS FROM SPEECH BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF LIUETENANT GOVERNORS
SAN FRANCISCO
It is good to be here.
It is not often that you can see so many people at one time who
are only a single heartbeat away from a governship. As I look at
you out there, you all remind me of Bob Finch. And this country is
in great shape if you all are doing as good a job as Bob is doing.
You know, there have been some malicious rumors that Bob and I
do not work very closely together. And it is true. He is on the
second floor and I am on the first.
But we do manage to bridge the distance and we do work together.
We have lunch once a week-where we chew over the problems of
government. And that can be quite a mouthful.
In fact, there are those who suggest the diet is completely in-
digestible. Bob and I are agreed that you can let the seeds spoil
your enjoyment of the watermelon or you can spit them out and we have
decided to spit them out.
But seriously, the job of lieutenant governor, as you well know,
is more than keeping tabs on the governor's pulse.
In California, it is not at all like that of Vice President.
The California Lieutenant Governor works. He has specific constitu-
tional duties.
There are some other differences between Bob and the Vice
President too--for instance, Bob is not from Minnesota.
In a way, a lieutenant governor should be compared to a vice
president--an executive vice president of a business corporation; and
that is our case in California.
Bob serves as presiding officer of the State Senate in his spare
time.
That is, when he is not busy as a regent of the university sys-
tem, a trustee of the state college system, chairman of the commission
-2-
of the Californias and chairman of the Bi-Centennial Commission.
Which he does when he is not working as a member of the National
Republican Coordinating Committee's Task Force on Job Opportunities,
the executive committee of the Intergovernmental Council on Urban
Growth and the State Lands Committee.
All of which, of course, is in addition to his duties as a mem-
ber of the Governor's Council, the California State Disaster Council,
the Commission on Interstate Cooperation and the Governor's Cabinet.
And then, because in this case we have a hardworking, able and
conscientious public servant, he has taken on one or two other jobs
at my request.
Now, all of this makes Bob Finch a pretty busy man, which really
may not be bad. If my golf game shows a sudden improvement, you will
know I thought of a few additional chores for him.
As a candidate, and now as a constitutional officer, Bob has the
support of the people of California because his stands are clear, and
he is willing to work for his beliefs and for his state.
Now, if all this sounds like I am campaigning for Bob's re-
election, it is not meant to. He still has three-and-a-half years to
go on his present term.
But I did want you other lieutenant governors to know that we
appreciate him, value his aid and counsel and are glad he is on our
team.
But even though we are happy with Bob, or perhaps because of it,
we think there is much that can be done and should be done to upgrade
the job of the lieutenant governor.
One of the things I think should be done is to make certain that
the lieutenant governor is recognized as a member of the executive
branch, not the legislative branch.
It is fine to have a way to break ties. But I think it is wrong
to elect a man to an executive position and then have him become in-
volved in the legislative process.
A man cannot be both fish and fowl. And neither should the
-3-
separation of powers be illegitimized by making one man both an
executive and a legislator.
And incidentally, while I am not one to go around telling other
states how to run their affairs, let me say that I think a lieutenant
governor is something no state should be without.
That, by the way, is a feeling we Californians have in general.
We believe California should always have a lieutenant governor.
For that reason, we have a unique clause in our Constitution
that lets the governor appoint a new lieutenant governor if anything
happens to the old one.
This means California always has a line of succession in case
something happens to the governor. Unfortunately, however, we now
have a weak link in that line of succession--something both Bob and
I think should be changed. And that is, under our system, the candi-
dates: for governor and lieutenant governor run for office separately
and are elected separately.
We think they should be a team before they are elected to make
sure they are a team after they are elected.
We have had cases in California where there has been a governor
of one party and a lieutenant governor of the other and the governor
did not dare leave the state for fear the lieutenant governor would
change the locks while he was gone.
But beyond that, it just does not make sense to us to have a
situation where theoretically a lieutenant governor of the opposite
party could always work against the governor, and even, as acting
governor, completely undo the work of the governor.
Now, I grant you that no honorable man, thrust into the position
where he could take advantage of the situation, would 60 SO. But,
while you and I are honorable, I am not so sure about the other guy.
Regardless, we see this as a flaw in any system, just as did our
forefathers. And as they changed the national situation, so we hope,
in the next four years, to be able to change the situation in
California.
-4-
We would like to see here a constitutional amendment that would
let the people, in the general election, vote for governor and lieu-
tenant governor as a team.
In the primary, I am inclined, at this time, to favor separate
races; let the people chose who they want as the party's nominee for
lieutenant governor, just as they do for governor.
But then unite them after the primary, just as we do in the
national general election.
There are also two other modifications I would like to see in the
laws governing the governor and the lieutenant governor.
First, I would like to see the governship of California limited
by constitutional amendment to two consecutive terms. Then the lieu-
tenant governor could say "How are you?" without being suspected of
taking a political sounding.
But, more important, I believe that a man can grow tired in
office, as can an administration. I believe that new blood means new
vigor, new ideas, new approaches to the problems of the people and of
government.
I do not believe that any man is indispensable.
The other change I would like to see is one that would leave the
governor still governor, but able to delegate powers to the lieuten-
ant governor while he, the governor, is out of state.
Now I realize that from state to state, the rules vary, but in
California, the minute I step across the state line, Bob Finch is
governor.
That is all right. But just suppose Bob had not won. Suppose
it was just me and a lieutenant governor with a prior obligation to
the opposing party.
I do not believe that when a governor crosses a state line, he
immediately is no longer fit to govern. Just as I do not believe that
when the President leaves the country, he should turn the country
over to Hubert Humphrey. (In some circles, I could win my point with
that line alone.)
-5-
I do believe, though, that if the governor leaves the state, he
should delegate certain chores to the lieutenant governor so that
government can continue to function.
The responsibility of signing bills, for instance the right
to
call out the National Guard in case of an emergency if the governor
is vacationing in Greece.
But I do not believe that our laws should be allowed to endanger
the policies and programs of a state administration if the governor
has been summoned to Washington or has accepted a speaking engagement
outside the state.
Now, once again, let me make it clear we are not talking here
about Bob Finch. What we are talking about is principles of govern-
ment. And I would be perfectly willing to let any changes in our
constitution take place after my term of office expires.
As I said earlier, I realize the rules of government vary from
state to state. And I am not suggesting that any state except
California change its laws. But I am suggesting that, as elected
officials, one of our duties--both yours and mine~-is to work to make
government more responsive to the will of the people, and government
officials more effective in performing their functions.
But now, that is enough of our theories of government. Let me
get down to the practical aspects of what a lieutenant governor's job
should or could be.
A lieutenant governor's responsibilities in the governor's
office should only be limited by his constitutional duties, his
willingness to work and the confidence the governor has in him.
In our case, as I mentioned earlier, the lieutenant governor
does have statutory duties that limit his time and availability some-
what.
But there have been no limitations on either his willingness to
work or in my confidence that he will do us a job.
In California, it has been our belief that the lieutenant gover-
nor could be of most value in two areas. One--as a troubleshooter,
-6-
and two, in what is the theme of this conference--as a broker or
coordinator between government and the independent sector.
You know, here in California, in what we have chosen to call
"The Creative Society," we have turned to the independent sector to
help solve the problems both of government and of the people.
We do not think government has all, or even most, of the answers.
We do not believe that government can gather together an elite group
that can supply the answers to all the problems of our complex age
and our many-faceted society.
But we do believe that for every problem that faces government
or the people, there is an answer and that someone, or some business
or some group has found or can find that answer.
Government, as a servant of the people--and we believe that
government should be the servant and not the master of the people--
has a responsibility to turn to the independent sector for those
answers.
And then to apply them to all the people and to make them work.
That is where the lieutenant governor can come in and where, in
California, he has come in.
You all know the story of Watts. And you have heard how one man,
Chad McClellan, marshalled industry after the riots to provide jobs
for the people of that area and how, in a year, he was able to put
more than 17,000 people to work.
Well, as you know, after the election and even before the
Inauguration, Bob and I got together with Chad McClellan and he, at
our request, expanded that program statewide. I think I would rather
that Bob told you about how that program is working in detail and he
can do it better than I can.
Because at my request he took on the job of serving as liaison
between government and Chad's effort.
Incidentally, this ties in with another job, that of chairman of
our Job Training and Placement Council, under which we are developing
a statewide system of making jobs available to trainees.
The entire private sector is being asked to work with the state
in this program.
In another area, Bob is coordinating two study groups looking
at the state's computer hardware.
This vital, but expensive, equipment had been purchased in the
past in a willy-nilly fashion with more thought to the prestige of a
department having its own computer than how to make the best use of
one.
One of our study groups is working to see how the state can work
with cities and counties and other agencies of government to insure
that computers get maximum use, that duplication is avoided, and that
information and equipment is standardized.
Another group is seeking to inventory all the computers owned
by the state. This, amazingly, had never been done. We expect that
this study will result in consolidating the use of computers in the
state government, perhaps getting rid of some and once again standard-
izing operating procedures.
Bob has estimated that millions and millions of dollars can be
saved through these studies.
But these studies are only the beginning of our efforts to stream-
line government in California and make it more efficient.
If I may, I would like to talk about this for a minute.
Now of course, I recognize that each state has different problems
and different laws and that states differ in the way they are run and
the efficiencies and economies that have been carried out.
But I think what is needed today, and what we are driving at
today, is a change in attitude among state officials, from governors
and lieutenant governors on down.
A new attitude that recognizes that tax money is the people's
money and that the people's servants--you and I--have an obligation
to be frugal with it and invest and spend it wisely.
An attitude that recognizes that government is the people and
-8-
that the officials of government are the servants of the people.
An attitude that says government must be both responsive and
responsible, that social gains proposed by government must not be
accomplished by a loss of freedom for the people and that governments'
actions today must be viewed in the light of their impact on the
future.
With a recognition of both the needs of the people and our
responsibilities to the people, we--both the lieutenant governors
and the governors can work together for the good of the people.
Above all, we must recognize the right of the people, and the
ability of the people, to have a major voice in deciding what is
good for them.
That, after all, is what our government is all about.
########
NOTE:
Since the governor speaks from notes, there may be changes
and/or additions made; however, he will stand by the above
quotes.
7/13
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNO
Sacramento, California
RELEASE: 12 noon
Contact: Paul Beck
Thursday, July 13
445-4571
7.13.67
EXCERPTS FROM SPEECH BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF LIUETENANT GOVERNORS
SAN FRANCISCO
It is good to be here.
It is not often that you can see so many people at one time who
are only a single heartbeat away from a governship. As I look at
you out there, you all remind me of Bob Finch. And this country is
in great shape if you all are doing as good a job as Bob is doing.
You know, there have been some malicious rumors that Bob and I
do not work very closely together. And it is true. He is on the
second floor and I am on the first.
But we do manage to bridge the distance and we do work together.
We have lunch once a week--where we chew over the problems of
government. And that can be quite a mouthful.
In fact, there are those who suggest the diet is completely in-
digestible. Bob and I are agreed that you can let the seeds spoil
your enjoyment of the watermelon or you can spit them out and we have
decided to spit them out.
But seriously, the job of lieutenant governor, as you well know,
is more than keeping tabs on the governor's pulse.
In California, it is not at all like that of Vice President.
The California Lieutenant Governor works. He has specific constitu-
tional duties.
There are some other differences between Bob and the Vice
President too--for instance, Bob is not from Minnesota.
In a way, a lieutenant governor should be compared to a vice
president--an executive vice president of a business corporation; and
that is our case in California.
Bob serves as presiding officer of the State Senate in his spare
time.
That is, when he is not busy as a regent of the university sys-
tem, a trustee of the state college system, chairman of the commission
-2-
of the Californias and chairman of the Bi-Centennial Commission.
Which he does when he is not working as a member of the National
Republican Coordinating Committee's Task Force on Job Opportunities,
the executive committee of the Intergovernmental Council on Urban
Growth and the State Lands Committee.
All of which, of course, is in addition to his duties as a mem-
ber of the Governor's Council, the California State Disaster Council,
the Commission on Interstate Cooperation and the Governor's Cabinet.
And then, because in this case we have a hardworking, able and
conscientious public servant, he has taken on one or two other jobs
at my request.
Now, all of this makes Bob Finch a pretty busy man, which reall
may not be bad. If my golf game shows a sudden improvement, you will
know I thought of a few additional chores for him.
As a candidate, and now as a constitutional officer, Bob has the
support of the people of California because his stands are clear, and
he is willing to work for his beliefs and for his state.
Now, if all this sounds like I am campaigning for Bob's re-
election, it is not meant to. He still has three-and-a-half years to
go on his present term.
But I did want you other lieutenant governors to know that we
appreciate him, value his aid and counsel and are glad he is on our
team.
But even though we are happy with Bob, or perhaps because of it,
we think there is much that can be done and should be done to upgrade
the job of the lieutenant governor.
One of the things I think should be done is to make certain that
the lieutenant governor is recognized as a member of the executive
branch, not the legislative branch.
It is fine to have a way to break ties. But I think it is wrong
to elect a man to an executive position and then have him become in-
volved in the legislative process.
A man cannot be both fish and fowl. And neither should the
separation of powers be illegitimized by making one man both an
executive and a legislator.
And incidentally, while I am not one to go around telling other
states how to run their affairs, let me say that I think a lieutenant
governor is something no state should be without.
That, by the way, is a feeling we Californians have in general.
We believe California should always have a lieutenant governor.
For that reason, we have a unique clause in our Constitution
that lets the governor appoint a new lieutenant governor if anything
happens to the old one.
This means California always has a line of succession in case
something happens to the governor. Unfortunately, however, we now
have a weak link in that line of succession--something both Bob and
I think should be changed. And that is, under our system, the candi-
dates for governor and lieutenant governor run for office separately
and are elected separately.
We think they should be a team before they are elected to make
sure they are a team after they are elected.
We have had cases in California where there has been a governor
of one party and a lieutenant governor of the other and the governor
did not dare leave the state for fear the lieutenant governor would
change the locks while he was gone.
But beyond that, it just does not make sense to us to have a
situation where theoretically a lieutenant governor of the opposite
party could always work against the governor, and even, as acting
governor, completely undo the work of the governor.
Now, I grant you that no honorable man, thrust into the position
where he could take advantage of the situation, would do SO. But,
while you and I are honorable, I am not so sure about the other guy.
Regardless, we see this as a flaw in any system, just as did our
forefathers. And as they changed the national situation, so we hope,
in the next four years, to be able to change the situation in
California.
-4-
We would like to see here a constitutional amendment that would
let the people, in the general election, vote for governor and lieu-
tenant governor as a team.
In the primary, I am inclined, at this time, to favor separate
races; let the people chose who they want as the party's nominee for
lieutenant governor, just as they do for governor.
But then unite them after the primary, just as we do in the
national general election.
There are also two other modifications I would like to see in the
laws governing the governor and the lieutenant governor.
First, I would like to see the governship of California limited
by constitutional amendment to two consecutive terms. Then the lieu-
tenant governor could say "How are you?" without being suspected of
taking a political sounding.
But, more important, I believe that a man can grow. tired in
office, as can an administration. I believe that new blood means new
vigor, new ideas, new approaches to the problems of the people and of
government.
I do not believe that any man is indispensable.
The other change I would like to see is one that would leave the
governor still governor, but able to delegate powers to the lieuten-
ant governor while he, the governor, is out of state.
Now I realize that from state to state, the rules vary, but in
California, the minute I step across the state line, Bob Finch is
governor.
That is all right. But just suppose Bob had not won. Suppose
it was just me and a lieutenant governor with a prior obligation to
the opposing party.
I do not believe that when a governor crosses a state line, he
immediately is no longer fit to govern. Just as I do not believe that
when the President leaves the country, he should turn the country
over to Hubert Humphrey. (In some circles, I could win my point with
that line alone.)
-5-
I do believe, though, that if the governor leaves the state, he
should delegate certain chores to the lieutenant governor so that
government can continue to function.
The responsibility of signing bills, for instance the right
to
call out the National Guard in case of an emergency if the governor
is vacationing in Greece.
But I do not believe that our laws should be allowed to endanger
the policies and programs of a state administration if the governor
has been summoned to Washington or has accepted a speaking engagement
outside the state.
Now, once again, let me make it clear we are not talking here
about Bob Finch. What we are talking about is principles of govern-
ment. And I would be perfectly willing to let any changes in our
constitution take place after my term of office expires.
As I said earlier, I realize the rules of government vary from
state to state. And I am not suggesting that any state except
California change its laws. But I am suggesting that, as elected
officials, one of our duties--both yours and mine~-is to work to make
government more responsive to the will of the people, and government
officials more effective in performing their functions.
But now, that is enough of our theories of government. Let me
get down to the practical aspects of what a lieutenant governor's job
should or could be.
A lieutenant governor's responsibilities in the governor's
office should only be limited by his constitutional duties, his
willingness to work and the confidence the governor has in him.
In our case, as I mentioned earlier, the lieutenant governor
does have statutory duties that limit his time and availability some-
what.
But there have been no limitations on either his willingness to
work or in my confidence that he will do us a job.
In California, it has been our belief that the lieutenant gover-
nor could be of most value in two areas. One--as a troubleshooter,
-6-
and two, in what is the theme of this conference--as a broker or
coordinator between government and the independent sector.
You know, here in California, in what we have chosen to call
"The Creative Society," we have turned to the independent sector to
help solve the problems both of government and of the people.
We do not think government has all, or even most, of the answers.
We do not believe that government can gather together an elite group
that can supply the answers to all the problems of our complex age
and our many-faceted society.
But we do believe that for every problem that faces government
or the people, there is an answer and that someone, or some business
or some group has found or can find that answer.
Government, as a servant of the people--and we believe that
government should be the servant and not the master of the people--
has a responsibility to turn to the independent sector for those
answers.
And then to apply them to all the people and to make them work.
That is where the lieutenant governor can come in and where, in
California, he has come in.
You all know the story of Watts. And you have heard how one man,
Chad McClellan, marshalled industry after the riots to provide jobs
for the people of that area and how, in a year, he was able to put
more than 17,000 people to work.
Well, as you know, after the election and even before the
Inauguration, Bob and I got together with Chad McClellan and he, at
our request, expanded that program statewide. I think I would rather
that Bob told you about how that program is working in detail and he
can do it better than I can.
Because at my request he took on the job of serving as liaison
between government and Chad's effort.
Incidentally, this ties in with another job, that of chairman of
our Job Training and Placement Council, under which we are developing
a statewide system of making jobs available to trainees.
-7-
The entire private sector is being asked to work with the state
in this program.
In another area, Bob is coordinating two study groups looking
at the state's computer hardware.
This vital, but expensive, equipment had been purchased in the
past in a willy-nilly fashion with more thought to the prestige of a
department having its own computer than how to make the best use of
one.
One of our study groups is working to see how the state can work
with cities and counties and other agencies of government to insure
that computers get maximum use, that duplication is avoided, and that
information and equipment is standardized.
Another group is seeking to inventory all the computers owned
by the state. This, amazingly, had never been done. We expect that
this study will result in consolidating the use of computers in the
state government, perhaps getting rid of some and once again standard-
izing operating procedures.
Bob has estimated that millions and millions of dollars can be
saved through these studies.
But these studies are only the beginning of our efforts to stream-
line government in California and make it more efficient.
If I may, I would like tc talk about this for a minute.
Now of course, I recognize that each state has different problems
and different laws and that states differ in the way they are run and
the efficiencies and economies that have been carried out.
But I think what is needed today, and what we are driving at
today, is a change in attitude among state officials, from governors
and lieutenant governors on down.
A new attitude that recognizes that tax money is the people's
money and that the people's servants--you and I--have an obligation
to be frugal with it and invest and spend it wisely.
An attitude that recognizes that government is the people and
-8-
that the officials of government are the servants of the people.
An attitude that says government must be both responsive and
responsible, that social gains proposed by government must not be
accomplished by a loss of freedom for the people and that governments'
actions today must be viewed in the light of their impact on the
future.
With a recognition of both the needs of the people and our
responsibilities to the people, we--both the lieutenant governors
and the governors--can work together for the good of the people.
Above all, we must recognize the right of the people, and the
ability of the people, to have a major voice in deciding what is
good for them.
That, after all, is what our government is all about.
########
NOTE: Since the governor speaks from notes, there may be changes
and/or additions made; however, he will stand by the above
quotes.
/26
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
RELEASE: 8 A.M., Wednesday,
445-4571
7.25.67
July 26
SPEECH BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
LOS ANGELES BREAKFAST CLUB
LOS ANGELES - JULY 26, 1967
It is a special pleasure for me to be here today and to become a
member of the Breakfast Club. After all, I came out of an industry in
which ham is a basic ingredient. You know, of course, that a ham is
an actor you don't have to egg on.
But now, of course, I'm in a different industry--one in which the
porkbarrel is more important-- one in which you bring home the bacon
and we spend it before you can eat it.
But seriously, there is more to government than just spending
your money, or even fighting the fight to see how little we must spend
in order to provide you the services you demand.
There is also the matter of providing excellence in the services
government must supply.
It is not enough to be frugal. While government must spend only
that money it needs, it also has an obligation to spend that money
wisely and to insure that each dollar buys the best dollar's worth
possible, whether it be in the area of road building, law enforcement
or education.
No government service is more important to a free society, such
as ours, or to a highly complex society, such as ours, as the provision
of education.
No society can be a free society unless it is a literate society.
No nation can long exist these days as a free nation and as a leader
among nations unless it maintains a place as a leader in the tech-
nological and scientific revolution that has been proceeding at an
explosive rate for the last 25 years.
We have recognized this in America and in California.
Today I would like to talk a few minutes about education in
California, particularly higher education.
Higher education's role in California is different in one major
way from that of education in the first through the 12th grades and
any examination of higher education must be made in the light of this
difference.
That difference is that grade school and high school education in
California are compulsory. It is strange in a land where we talk
freedom and believe in freedom that education should be required.
-1-
But our forefath ; knew, as we know, that a y an educated
populace can remain free.
Today, we have now come a step farther. Today, we recognize that
it is no longer enough to assure our children a basic education.
Today's world demands more of those who have the capacity and the
desire to give more.
Horatio Alger heroes are getting fewer and fewer. Luck and pluck
alone will not conquer cancer, solve the problems of air, water and lane
pollution, cure our traffic problems, put an end to urban blight or give
our nation the weapons it needs to protect itself in an unfriendly world.
As a matter of fact, they're really not enough anymore to assure
a man much more than a living wage.
Today, then, a higher education benefits both the individual and
society. And as both share in its benefits, so it is right that both
should share in its costs.
But education must never be priced beyond the reach of those who
who want it or those who need it, regardless of their economic status.
That philosophy has always prevailed in California. It has been
responsible for the development of a university system recognized as
having no peer in the nation, a college system that has provided higher
education to hundreds of thousands of young men and women, and for a
junior college system that is a model other states seek to follow.
But our concentration on excellence in our higher education system
has resulted in the development of side problems in the system---problems
that are not insoluable but that have largely been ignored as they
developed, until now we have reached the point where action must be
taken.
Foremost among those problems is the make-up of our student
populations at the various compuses of the university.
Bluntly, they have become almost closed campuses, available mainly
to those who come from upper middle class, white families.
Exact figures are not available but we know for instance that
were
last year there / lessi than 100 Mexican-American students attending
UCLA. And we know that Negroes were represented not nearly in
proportion to their percentage of population.
We know too that more than 75 percent of the University's students
come from families that earn more than $8,000 annually. Another 11
percent have family incomes of between $6 and $8 thousand and only a
little over 12 percent come from families with less than $6,000 income
Almost the same number come from families that have incomes
in excess of $25,000.
Strangely our state college system is not much better. Only 14
percent of the students there come from families that have incomes of
under $6,000 a year.
Only in our junior colleges do appreciable numbers come from the
lower economic strata. There, nearly one-fourth of the students come
from families with incomes under $6,000 a year.
It is obvious from this that we are doing a poor job of providing
higher education for our lower income groups. In effect, we are
perpetuating poverty by making it virtually impossible for those stu-
dents from lower income families to get college educations that in turn
will increase in a major way their earning potentials and raise the
standards of themselves and their children. I am talking, of course,
about the children of our minority groups who have special problems
because of color or language barriers.
We talk much about equality of opportunity for our minorities.
We have done little about providing equality of education which is basic
to equality of opportunity.
I am here today to talk primarily about a plan--this administration's
plan- to provide equality of opportunity through education, not only
for our ecomomically deprived minorities, but for all our lower income
students who have the capacity and the will to learn.
I have chosen to call this the Equal Education Plan. "
We are not married to it in detail, but we hope that our colleges
and universities will accept its principles as at least a first step
toward providing / an opportunity for equaluation for all our students,
not just those who can afford it. Then we can work out details
agreeable to all concerned.
Before I discuss the plan itself, let me say it will take the
active cooperation, not only of the colleges and universities but
also the school districts and the high schools to make any plan work,
if it is to work, in those areas where we have large groups of
minorities.
It will take the cooperation, the interest and enthusiasm of all
those in public education to make this plan work because it is not
enough just to make an education available. It also must be made
known, explained and in many cases even encouragedand sold- especially
to students who come from homes where there is a language barrier,
- 3 -
where there is illiteracy or where, because of en. Tronmental factors,
there is lack of ambition and even hopelessness.
Therefore, this plan--any plan--will need an aggressive guidance
and information program at the high school level, expanded counseling
and even a recruiting system.
This should not be the responsibility of the high schools alone.
The college and university systems should work hand in hand with the
school districts to assure that every student capable of acquiring and
absorbing a college education has access to one. We hear much in
meetings of the university Regents about the benefits to the University
of having substantial numbers of out=of-state students. And rightfully
so. These do broaden the range of students and make for a more
meaningful student dialogue.
However, here in California we have a broad strata of students
who, if they just could get into the University, would also add to the
quality and variety of the student body.
Although qualified intellectually, they have been barred for three
reasons. One, which is not the subject of our talk here today, is the
fact that language and environmental barriers have not let them live up
to their true potentials in high school. In other words, scholastically
they are not among the 10-12₂ percent of their graduating class. We
hope this problem is being and will be taken care of through legislation.
Second and third are the financial barriers which we are here
to discuss, and the fact that little has been done either to explain
to many students the opportunities already available, to expand those
opportunities or to encourage their use. This we hope to do.
How do we hope to do this?
In two ways, one depending on the other.
First, by a combination of loans and scholarships.
Second, by the expanded counseling I mentioned earlier to make
certain all qualified students know what is available.
Our combination loan-scholarship plan is aimed not only at helping
the student through all four years of college, but also at encouraging
him to finish college.
Here's how it will work.
First of all, it is based on total annual necessary expenditures
of about $2,000 a year including tuition, fees, room and board, books
and incidental expenses.
- 4 -
Secondly, all 1 IS are to be repayable onl after the student has
left college and has begun earning.
During his first year of college, the student will borrow 75 per-
cent of his basic $2,000 and receive 25 percent in scholarships.
In his second year the student will borrow 50 percent and receive
50 percent in scholarships.
During his third year the loan will be 25 percent and the scholar-
ship 75 percent.
During his senior year the student will receive a full scholarship.
An alternative proposal which also has merit is to reverse the
procedure and make the first year free in order not to discourage
potential students from low income groups. This is a detail we can
work out.
That is the basic plan.
Of course there are a number of questions yet to be answered, such
as who will benefit.
We are aiming with this plan at those who otherwise could not
afford a college or university education. Therefore, qualification for
it is based on need rather than on academic excellence. Academic
qualifications will be the same as those for all students.
We do not yet know what the need level will be, although we have
studies underway in this area. It is obvious that a family making
$7,500 a year and having one child is in a better position to educate
him than a family making $15,000 a year and having four children. Some
sort of sliding scale appears to be the proper way of handling this.
Other questions arise about repaying the loans. What about
women who receive loans and then marry before they are in a position to
repay? What about men in the service? What about those who enter
professional areas where great need exists?
In these and other cases we think there should be foregiveness
features. Exactly how these would work are for the Regents and the
Legislature to decide, since it is the Regents who will eventually
approve the plan for the University and the Legislature for the colleges.
The next question is: How is the plan to be financed?
And now is the time to wave the red flag in front of some of our
academicians.
The answer is tuition.
Tuition is not a dirty word. All private schools exist on tuition
in part as do most state college and university systems. California is
a rare exception.
- 5 -
I think we all erstand here that there il 10 such thing as
free public education. The only question is, "Who pays?"
Up until now, the taxpayer has borne most of the cost of education
in California from kindergarten through the university.
Spiraling costs and spiraling numbers of students have made it
clear that we cannot continue to do this at current levels without
imposing an intolerable burden on our taxpayers.
As I pointed out earlier, our present tuition-free system has not
really done what it is intended to do anyway. It has taxed the poor
to support higher education but has not permitted them to take advantage
of it because of peripheral costs--room and board, books, fees and so
forth.
Tuition at a nominal rate can solve this problem by providing the
funds to allow the poor to attend.
Last January, three UCLA professors wrote a letter to the L. A.
Times on this subject. I have never seen anyone refute what they said.
Let me read it.
"The long overdue proposal to charge tuition at state-supported
colleges deserves wide support = particularly by low income taxpayers
and those interested in a more efficient educational system.
"At present, every student, regardless of whether he or his parents
are rich or poor, is given a subsidized scholarship of about $2,000
a year. That is roughly the cost of a year's schooling at the university.
"The wealthy benefit from this bonanza at the expense of the poor.
72 percent of the 18-year-olds from families with income over $14,000
are in colleges but only 12 percent from families with less than $2,000
annual income. Yet, the taxes for financing the bonanza bear more heavily
on the poor than on the rich.
"It is eminently desirable that every young man and woman in
California have full opportunity to make the most of his ability =
including the opportunity to attend an institution of higher learning.
"Full opportunity for all, rich and poor, can be established by
a generous loan fund for those who cannot at the time finance the
tuition costs. This will enable all who have both the ability and the
desire for an advanced education to bear the costs out of the higher
income that their training will yield.
This would be far more equitable, efficient and beneficial than
present arrangements because it would simultaneously promote a higher
- 6 -
quality of education
forcing
state
schools
to
a
more
responsive
to
student interests and to compete on more nearly equal terms with
provate schools.
"We trust the measure currently under discussion will be the first
step toward a policy of cost-based tuition accompanied by generous
loan funds. II
I propose, therefore as I have done for six months-that tuition
be charged at the state supported colleges and University.
The case for tuition is a strong one.
As I said earlier, it is right that those who share in the benefits
of a college education should share in the costs. That includes both
the students and the public.
Tuition today could finance the combined loan-scholarship program
I have talked about.
It could also provide enriched programs in both the colleges and
universities and money for special programs = and help finance capital
improvements on all the campuses.
As an example, let us look at what could be done with a relatively
modest tuition: $250 at the university level, $180 for the state
colleges.
At the University level, for instance, in addition to providing
the necessary financial aid, tuition will guarantee 250 teaching chairs
in the university and 300 in the state colleges -- all at salary levels
high enough and flexible enough to attract and retain the finest
teaching talent in the nation.
It is estimated that in the 1968-69 school year the tuition plan
University of California and approximately $29 million for the state
will generate some $26 million for the / colleges. The plan proposes
that 50 percent of these revenues will be used each year for scholar-
ships and loans, 25 percent to establish and maintain the teaching
chairs, and 25 percent for capital improvements.
We think--and the figures I mentioned earlier verify--that most
students can afford tuition. We think our full and fair education plan
will take care of those who cannot.
There are now more than 720,000 students attending our universities,
colleges and junior colleges. The state appropriates in excess of
1/2 billion of your tax dollars to pay for this. This is in addition
to the property tax levy for junior colleges.
Education is vital to the progress of our state and nation.
-7-
But we must also lucate our students to acctpt their
responsibilities, and those of us in government to accept our
responsibilities, not only to education, but also to all the people.
This administration is trying to do that by refusing to spend
beyond the people's means, by working to provide a higher education for
all who can benefit from it and by asking those who can afford it to
pick up their share of the burden.
We can have an educated populace we can make higher education
available to all our people who are qualified and truly desirous of an
education and we can do it without increasing the tax burden on those
who can afford it least.
But it will take your help and the support of millions of others
in our state, I am asking for that help and that support here today.
# # #
-8-
7-25-67
THE "EQUAL EDUCATION PLAN"
FOR HIGHER EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA
Governor Ronald Reagan's "Equal Education Plan" for higher
education in California has four major objectives:
1. To achieve full educational opportunity for all qualified
students in California, including those from the poorest
families and from racial minorities -- guaranteeing full
opportunity in fact instead of opportunity in theory.
2. To keep the University of California and the State
Colleges fully competitive with the great private
universities and colleges in attracting and retaining
outstanding teachers.
3. To provide a supplemental capital improvement fund for
each campus of the University and each State College.
Use of this fund shall be tailored to the individual
requirements of the particular campus or college and
shall be administered by each local campus administra-
tion.
4. To eliminate existing inequities, so that low-income
families shall not pay a disproportionate share of the
cost of educating students in comparison with upper-
income families.
To accomplish all four objectives promptly, efficiently, and
effectively, Governor Reagan recommends the adoption of a modest
annual tuition of $250 per year for full-time California students
at the University of California and $180 per year for full-time
California students in the State Colleges.
The total amounts received from tuition will be enough to provide
generous grant-in-aid and loan funds for needy students. This
means students can not only pay their tuition, but also board,
room, and other expenses. These latter expenses are keeping
disadvantaged students, including those from minorities, from
- 1 -
achieving a fair representation on our University and State
College campuses,
In addition to providing the necessary financial aid, tuition will
guarantee 250 teaching chairs at the University and 300 in the
State Colleges - all at salary levels high enough and flexible
enough to attract and retain the finest teaching talent in the
nation.
Tuition also will generate enough revenue to establish critically
needed special funds for capital improvements at each campus and
college.
Moreover, these funds -- making available additional revenues for
capital improvements -- will reduce demands upon the General Fund
by at least $10 to $15 million per year.
It is estimated that in the 1968-69 school year the tuition plan
will generate some $26 million for the University of California
and approximately $29 million for the State Colleges. The
Governor's plan proposes that 50 percent of these revenues will
be used each year for grants-in-aid and loans, 25 percent to estab-
lish and maintain the teaching chairs, and 25 percent for capital
improvements.
In summary, the highlights of the four key elements of the "Equal
Education Plan" are as follows:
1. Grants-in-aid and loan program --
The major economic barrier to a college education is not
tuition but, rather, the cost of more expensive items
such as board, room, and transportation. Relatively
few students from low-income families or minorities
actually are found on our University and State College
campuses today. To correct this unfortunate imbalance,
the Governor recommends that half the proceeds from
tuition be used each year to support a full program of
- 2 -
grants-in-aid. In addition, these grants will be
supplemented by a complete loan program at minimum
interest rates which utilizes private, state, and
federal funds,
Governor Reagan also suggests active recruiting and
counseling programs geared to students in the low-income
neighborhoods who should be encouraged to enroll in the
University of California and the State Colleges.
In the awarding of grants and loans, the Governor recom-
mends that the sole criterion for eligibility be that
of need, once admitted to the University or State College
of choice. He proposes that uniform criteria be estab-
lished to determine need and the amount of assistance
appropriate in each case. In establishing these criteria,
he suggests that, in addition to family income, considera-
tion be given to other factors on a formula basis.
These factors will include the number of children in the
family, other family obligations, and the ability of the
student to assist himself through part-time employment.
Another factor is whether different requirements should
be established for women students as compared to men
students and their ability to assist in financing their
own education.
Finally, criteria should be established for forgiveness
of loans to encourage graduates to enter important fields
of employment which fill a national or community need.
Examples might include teaching, research, or military
service.
2. Teaching chairs --
On the basis of projections, it will be possible to
establish and support at least 550 teaching chairs --
250 in the University and 300 in the State Colleges.
These chairs will attract outstanding teachers and
reward and retain recognized members of the teaching
- 3 -
faculty. The majority of these chairs would be filled
over the years by promotion from within, but the program
would also attract outstanding faculty from throughout
the country.
It is hoped that the establishment of the chairs would
serve to keep the University of California fully competi-
tive with other great private universities and colleges
in this country.
3. Capital improvement program --
The 25 percent of tuition revenues to be assigned for
capital improvements in the University of California
would amount to approximately $6.5 million for the year
1968-69. It is recommended that this money be divided
among the individual campuses of the University in
amounts proportionate to their respective contribution
of tuition revenues or enrollment on the basis of rela-
tive size; therefore, a significant supplemental fund
would be available for the individual capital needs of
each campus, which presumably would have had to come
from the state's General Fund and taxpayers. The amount
available to the State Colleges during 1968-69 would be
$7 million and would be applied in the same manner.
4. Tuition --
More than three-fifths of the students in the University
of California and more than half of the students in the
State Colleges come from families in income brackets of
$10,000 or higher. A very substantial number come from
families with income in excess of $15,000 or even in
excess of $25,000, particularly at the University. Con-
versely, only 12 percent of the University students and
14 percent of the State College students come from
families with incomes below $6,000. Inasmuch as the
principal financial support of both the University and
the Colleges comes from the General Fund, it is obvious
- 4 -
that the lower-income families are paying to support
educational institutions which are used primarily by the
upper-income families. A modest tuition plan -- augmented
by grants and loans -- corrects this inequity.
The costs of a higher education should be based on need according
to the formula described earlier. In this connection, the "Equal
Education Plan" provides, through a unique combination of grants
and loans, the supplementary funds necessary to permit any
qualified California student the funds he needs to obtain a higher
education. Such a plan -- for the first time -- establishes a
means for reaching the goals outlined in the Master Plan for
Higher Education in California.
The particulars of this plan are as follows:
Once financial need is established, the grant-loan program will
be administered in the following manner:
1. During the first year the student will borrow 75 percent
and be awarded 25 percent in grants.
2. During the second year the student will borrow 50 percent
and be awarded 50 percent in grants.
3. During the third year the student will borrow 25 percent
and be awarded 75 percent in grants.
4. During the fourth year the student will receive the full
amount in grant monies.
5. Governor Reagan recognizes the importance, not only to
the State of California but also to the University and
State Colleges, of attracting outstanding graduates from
throughout the country. While tuition will be charged
graduate students, it is not anticipated that this
program will alter the Regents' posture regarding cer-
tain waivers. Full-time graduate students who meet the
identical requirements in the area of financial need as
do those undergraduates mentioned above will become a
part of the grant-loan program and receive 50 percent
- 5 -
of the annual $2,000 stipend in the form of a grant-
in-aid and 50 percent in the form of a loan. The
Governor also suggests that the Regents examine the
possibility of forgiveness in the area of these graduate
loans, as is being suggested with regard to undergraduate
loans, for selected areas of state need.
It should be pointed out here that the dollar amount being con-
sidered a necessary expenditure in this area includes all expenses
at the University. Present estimates place this figure at $2,000
per year, which would include the student's tuition, fees, room
and board, books, and incidental expenses.
Certain objections have been raised regarding the high amount of
loan required during the first year. An alternative which will
avoid discouraging potential students from lower socio-economic
and minority groups reverses the above formula and places the
emphasis upon grants rather than loans. This plan would establish
an absolute-need category, intended to cover those particular cases
which might be discouraged by the high loan during the first year
of either graduate or undergraduate students. Under the plan,
the student could enter the University on full grant-in-aid during
the first year, borrow 50 percent and receive 50 percent in grants
the second year, borrow 25 percent and receive 75 percent the third
year, and receive full grant-in-aid the final year.
In conclusion, the Governor points out, in the case of needy stu-
dents, tuition will be offset by grants and loans. On the other
hand, for the well-to-do family, $250 or $180 for tuition is
far below the tuition for a private university or college, and it
represents only a fraction of the actual cost to the taxpayers.
For example, the actual cost to the state of educating a student
at the University of California for one year has been estimated at
$2,980 -- as compared to the proposed tuition of $250.
With regard to students from out of state, it is recommended that
the higher tuition rate for them be maintained and that the resi-
dence requirements be revised and strengthened.
# #6 6 # -
/
8/14
8/
Excerpts
FOR PM RELEASE
Honday, August 14, 1967
Philip M. Battaglia
Executive Assistant to
Governor Ronald Reagan
Remarks to Downtown Rotary Club of Fresno
Noon, Monday, August 14, 1967
"Approval of Governor Reagan's crime prevention and control
proposals was the Administration's most important victory-- next
to passage of the revenue and budget measures-- of the 1967 legis-
lative session.
"Faced with the frightening fact that California leads the
nation in crime, the Governor promised-- and delivered-- a compre-
hensive crime and law enforcement program to strengthen the 'soft
spots' in the state's laws and crime prevention programs.
"The most significant victory was the passage of the Adminis-
tration's fiscal proposals which included a responsible, fair and
broadly-based revenue plan to finance the 1967-68 budget. Next was
the crime package-- followed by a wide range of traffic safety
measures
steps to control air and water pollution
and
forward-looking legislation in the area of agriculture, government
reorganization and education.
"
Highlights of the Governor's successful crime package:
Creation of the California Council on Criminal Justice
to develop a master plan for the prevention, detection
and control of crime.
-Establishment of a public corporation known as the
California Crime Technological Research Foundation to
apply modern methods of science and technology to the
prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension and
treatment of criminals and the improvement of law
enforcement administration.
Increased penalties for those convicted of carrying
deadly weapons, rape and burglary.
MORE
-2-
In the traffic safety area, highlights include a California
Traffic Safety Program to map a full attack on the state's
high rate of traffic casualties. (In 1966, California had
4,830 highway deaths-- the highest in the nation.)
Creation of emergency medical care committees in every
county to review first aid practices, ambulance and
emergency medical services.
--A full study on ways to reduce traffic deaths or injuries
caused by drunk driving.
Air and Water Pollution Control
Created the Water Resources Control Board to consolidate
efforts in water roclamation and water quality control.
Created the Air Resources Board to coordinate statewide
air and motor vehicle pollution control efforts.
Agricultura
--A program to eradicate the pink bollworm.
A farm labor service commission to develop procedures for
full agriculture employment.
Government Reorganization
Logislation to reorganize the executive branch of
government into an effective and efficient unit.
Education
Clarification of procedures for school district
unification-- i.e., elections to be held once each
four years instead of every two years.
Direct and indirect property tax relief of $145 million
this year and $300 million noxt year for combined school
aid and property tax relief.
# #
8/13/67
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Taul Beck
TUESDAY AM'S RELEASE
445-4571
8.14.67
Excerpts of
Philip M. Battaglia
Executive Assistant to
Gov. Ronald Reagan
To Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
King Arthur's Restaurant - Bakersfield
7:30 PM - Monday, August 14, 1967
"The biggest problem of the Reagan Administration was the fiscal
crisis inherited from the Brown Administration.
"Perhaps the most significant accomplishment to date has been the
success in meeting this crisis-- reversing dangerous and unwise
fiscal policies.
"When the Administration took office in January, it inherited a
$5 billion state budget (highest in the history of any state in the
nation)
a deficit gap of $500 million between expenditures and
income
more than $4 billion in bonds
the highest taxes in the
nation
a
$386 General Fund deficiency
and a $194 million debt
left over from the last year of the previous administration.
"In fact, the state budget increased over 200% during the past
ten years, while the state's population increased only 40%.
"Governor Reagan faced the fiscal crisis
and acted. He ordered
an independent audit of the entire financial picture, which confirmed
that the state was spending $1 million more a day than it was receiv-
ing. The Administration also reduced the initial 1967-68 budget by
$127 million (the largest cut ever made in a state budget in our
nation's history) blue-penciled the final budget $43.5 million and
paid off the state's $194 million debt.
"The 1967-68 budget, on a comparable basis, represents about an
8% increase over the 1966-67 budget
while the 1966-67 budget was
over 16% higher than the 1965-66 budget.
"Without hurting the level of state services, the Reagan Adminis-
tration brought economy to state government. Some examples:
Cut departmental spending by over $100 million.
Reduced 2,550 full-time state employees from the payroll--down
2.5% during the first six months. In the last several years,
the state payroll has grown: up 4.3% in 1963-64; up 3.4% in
1964-65; up 4.9% in 1965-66.
Reduced out-of-state travel during the first six months alone
by 74%-- a savings of $354,000.
(more)
Sold the state-owned airplane, returning more than $217,000 to
the state.
Saved $262,000 by eliminating an unnecessary highway magazine
and multicolor map.
Saved $59,000 in typewriter purchases alone
and $50,000 in
ribbons.
#
#
#
- 2 -
PB/
8
S/
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Sacramento, California
RELEASE: NOON TUESDAY
Contact:
Paul Beck
August 15, 1967
445-4571
8.14.67
Please hold against
premature release.
Excerpts of
Philip M. Battaglia, Ececutive Assistant
toGov. Ronald Reagan at
San Diego Kiwanis Club
El Cortez Hotel
Noon, Tuesday, Aug. 15, 1967
"Governor Reagan's proposals for higher education-- his Equal
Education Plan-- have received widespread public support and are
examples of the creative approach to a difficult state problem.
"One of the most complex dilemmas confronting the Administration
is how the state can get the dollars to maintain California's tradit-
ional quality and excellence in education. Even in an era of economy,
the demand for dollars for higher education still increases.
"If the University of California, for example, is to maintain its
educational excellence and also expand educational opportunities to all
economic levels, it must by necessity look to tuition as a source of
revenue.
"To the critics of tuition, we say that the concept of free
education is a paradox. Those who share in the benefits of a college
education should share in its costs-- and the poor should not be taxed
to provide a so-called 'free education' for the wealthy.
"Almost 2/3 of the student body at the University of California--
and more than 50% of the state college student body-- come from families
in the $10,000 or higher income bracket.
"Lower income families are paying to support educational
institutions which are used primarily by upper-income families. The
modest tuition plan proposed in Governor Reagan's Equal Education Plan--
with generous grants and loans- corrects this inequity. If
#
PB/
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Thursuay P.M.
Sacramento, California
Contact: Paul Beck
445-4571
8.16.67
EXCERPTS OF SPEECH BY PHILIP M. BATTAGLIA,
Executive Assistant to Governor Ronald Reagan,
before Los Angeles Press Club - Noon, Thursday, 8/17/67
Judge Milton Marks' election victory in a heavily Democratic
district represents a loud and clear vote of confidence in the
programs, policies and philosophy of the Reagan administration. It
is a declaration that the people of California approve and endorse the
major accomplishments of the administration's first eight months.
The major accomplishments include
--Governor Reagan brought economy to state government. The
administration met head-on the state's fiscal problems inherited from
the Brown administration. The governor brought about economies and
efficiencies in face of a $5 billion state budget, a deficit gap of
$500 million, a $386 million General Fund deficiency and a $194 million
debt left over from the last year of the Brown administration. He
blue pencilled the final budget
reduced positions from the state
payroll
cut out-of-state travel 74 percent
and paid cff the cash
debt.
-Governor Reagan won major legislative victories. Even with a
Legislature controlled by the opposite party, the governor won approval
for a sweeping crime prevention and control program, fair and broadly-
based revenue and budget measures, major property tax relief, and a wide
range of proposals to solve problems of traffic safety, agriculture,
government reorganization, recreation, education and pollution.
--Governor Reagan restored the executive branch to its tradi-
tional position of leadership: The Reagan administration returned the
proper balance to government. No longer is state government dominated
solely by the legislative branch--as under the Brown administration.
The governor conducted an orderly transfer of power; named 300 qualified
and respected men and women to government positions; and initiated
surveys, task forces, and studies to improve government.
--Governor Reagan launched the Creative Society:
proposed
a broad "Equal Education" plan
established the Governor's Survey on
Efficiency and Cost Control.
-1-
(
(
(
-- Expanded Chad McClellan's highly successful Management Council
on a statewide basis, finding industrial job opportunities for the
state's disadvantaged. The Reagan administration, through its newly
created Job Training and Placement Council, has already expanded this
program to San Francisco and the Bay Area (over 1500 firms participating
to date), Monterey, San Bernardino, San Diego and Riverside.
Governor Reagan has made people aware of state government:
Today more Californians are interested in the problems confronting
state government than ever before. The governor's mail alone is four
times greater, per day, than under the previous administration. Polls
show that more people have opinions on problems and issues than under
any previous administration.
# # #
-2-
8/18
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
Sacramento, California
FOR PM RELEASE FRIDAY
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
8.18.67
Excerpts of Philip M. Battaglia
Executive Assistant to Gov. Ronald Reagan
To the Commonwealth Club of California - Sheraton-Palace
Hotel, San Francisco, Noon, Friday, August 18, 1967
"Governor Reagan has opened a full-time, fully staffed office to
implement his Creative Society ideas.
"The office is known as the Center for Creative Society Action. Its
purpose is to enlist individual and voluntary action in meeting and
solving the complex problems confronting our state. It will not cost
the taxpayers one cent-- and is located in Sacramento where staff mem-
bers can work with Administration officials in finding solutions to such
problems as pollution, low-cost housing, juvenile delinquency and urban
blight.
"The Center also will work on programs to attract new industry to
California, stimulate private and independent research into oceanog-
raphy and solicit corporate action in social problem-solving.
"Most people are well aware of the two basic sectors in American
society: the public sector, government
and the private sector,
industry.
"The Creative Society identifies still a third sector, the
independent sector-- made up of millions of individual citizens acting
through organizations which are neither governmental nor commercial
such as labor unions, churches, service clubs, foundations, and private
welfare associations.
"Our past has been built on the resourcefulness and effectiveness
of this sector
working together with the private and public sectors.
"The Creative Society has already put this force to work, for
example:
In the Survey on Efficiency and Cost Control where nearly 200
experts are examining government for efficiencies and economies.
In the many task forces and study groups tackling complex
problems of taxation, transportation and communications.
"Philosophically, the Creative Society is an attitude- a way of
conducting government- a spirit which guides the decisions and
thinking of those chosen to lead.
"The Reagan Administration is guided by the theory that the
solutions to the people's problems lie with the people and that the
government is best when kept closest and most responsive- to the
people.
II
#
#
#
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE - FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 8
Sacramento, California
7:30 a.m.
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
9.7.67
EXCERPTS FROM
SPEECH BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
SACRAMENTO HOST COMMITTEE BREAKFAST
SACRAMENTO - SEPTEMBER 8, 1967
It is a pleasure to be here this morning in the most beautiful,
the healthiest, the friendliest, the most smog-free state in the union.
The preceeding was a paid, political announcement.
This is quite a different occasion than the last time I spoke at
a breakfast meeting. At that time I sat on a saw-horse and put my hand
on a cold fried egg. But then, that was an initiation, and somehow I
have the feeling that this morning kind of marks the end of several
months of initiation.
We are doing much better here in the Capitol. I think we are
beginning to get things in order. There was a time back around
January when I felt like an Egyptian tank driver with a set of Russian
instructions.
There has been a lot of talk about me and the Legislature --
whether we are getting along or not. Well I think such talk is based
on a false premise -- we have gotten along very well. Of course, I
have wondered at times what the ten commandments would have looked like
if Moses had had to run into a state legislature. But all in all, I
have been very fortunate. California is the only state I know that
gives its governor on-the-job training.
Today should mark the end of our special five day veto session,
an historic first in our state. As you know, under our revised Consti-
tution, the legislature must come back into session for five days, 30
days after it adjourns. The purpose is to give it a chance to over-
ride any vetos the Governor may have been forced to make, and this
Governor felt forced to make some.
Some of the bills that were vetoed, however, did not represent any
great disagreement between the legislature and myself, but were simply
2
recognition that you can not spend what you do not have, and
government has demonstrated from time immemorial an ability to find more
ways to spend money than to produce it.
As you can imagine I have had a great many suggestions with regard
to meeting our financial problem, up to and including seceding from the
Union, and then applying for foreign aid. But when I found out how much
more California sends to Washington, than Washington sends back to
- 1 -
California, I figured we might get stuck for giving foreign aid to
them.
Seriously, it is my hope that some very worthwhile measures now
under veto can be reintroduced next year with the expectation that
funds will be available to finance them. For example -- the legislation
that would have established more diagnostic centers for retarded
children.
You know, in the old days, the Governor could avoid the heat that
comes from vetoing a bill just by not signing it. Without his signature,
the bill died; and this was called a "pocket veto". The electorate
changed that, and now, if a bill isn't signed in 30 days after the
Legislature adjourns, it becomes law. They have a kind of "pocket
passage" instead of a "pocket veto". And of course, this means that
with each veto there has to be a message explaining why. You should
have to write 83 letters saying "no".
As of this moment, 1,725 measures have been signed into law and
83 bills have been vetoed, which, if passed, would have added more than
$40 million to the taxpayers bill.
There are those who have said that this is a negative approach.
As a matter of fact, they have critized this administration as being
almost totally negative in these first eight months. I wonder if there
is not some clue here to the basic philosophy dividing so many of us.
Is it negative to seek to reduce the cost of government?
Is it negative to want to do something about the spread of
pornography?
To reduce crime?
Or to suggest that welfare is injurious unless it helps the
recipient become independent of it?
Eight months ago, we began talking about a theory of government
which we chose to call the "Creative Society". We have explained, at
every opportunity, that our theory is simply that government does not
rule, does not intimidate, does not lecture -- but leads, cooperates,
listens, and, instead of taking power unto itself, turns to the people
for the answers to as many of their problems as they can possibly
provide.
In these several months we have done a number of things consistent
with our belief that, in a creative society, there are many functions
now solely performed by government that can be performed -- and perhaps,
be better performed -- by using the full genius, and power, and ability
of the people.
It was amazing for us to find out Just how many people are
willing to help -- want to help -- if someone will tell them what needs
to be done.
An example illustrating this occured in those first weeks in
January by accident. We were snowed under a flood of mail that swamped
the regular staff of government employees. We fell hundreds of thousands
of letters behind -- so far behind, they were not even opened. One
news story carried word of this fact, and within 24 hours, without our
having thought of such a thing, the large Council Room in the Capitol
was filled with card tables and ladies who had come in -- volunteered
to help until the backlog was whittled down. This just happened to be
their own idea. Unorganized, each one of them came in independently
of the others; each one had the idea herself.
At the opposite extreme was something with which you, as business
leaders throughout the state, are familiar: the work of the more than
200 citizens in our state who formed task forces, and who, over these
past several months, have devoted full time bringing their expertise
and their knowledge to bear on the problems of government. Their
several hundred reports with their findings are now being put into
order and we will soon be taking measures to implement them for the
increased efficiency of government and for greater economy in govern-
ment
But, so that this idea of the Creative Society and the interested
citizenry already participating will not stop here, an office has
opened here in Sacramento, privately financed: The Center for
Independent Action. This was started by Richard Cornvelle, author of
"Reclaiming the American Dream".
We intend to work closely with the Center to take advantage of
the contribution it can make in developing and demonstrating the most
effective way government leaders can work to upgrade independent action.
The staff of the Center will work as volunteer agents for the
specific purpose of stimulating non-governmental action. They will
identify and define public problems which can respond to non-govern-
mental action. They will suggest how and to whom the challenges can be
made. And they will identify non-governmental programs which produce
results.
This kind of independent action can result in the easing of tax
burdens, the solving of problems when you need them solved -- and not
when the government decides you need them -- will result in making
California a better place for ourselves and our families, and our
neighbors.
Now this, of course, sounds pretty theoretical, but we think some
of the theory has been checked out and found pretty practical.
There have been many debates as to how much alike business and
government can be, with some stressing the difference between them and
claiming that government just cannot be run like business. There is no
question but that government -- in its position as referee of the
peoples' affairs -- cannot match business exactly.
But I have long nursed a theory that many of the sound practices
of business can be utilized by government to the peoples' advantage.
During these several months, as I am sure we have told you on a number
of occasions, we have put these ideas to work.
You have all heard about the 10-story building that will not be
built here in Sacramento. It was to have housed two state government
agencies. One of our citizen task forces simply applied the normal
business standards to those departments regarding the square feet of
floor space which should be sufficient for each employee. On this
basis, it was discovered that two buildings presently occupied can
handle the staff of these departments, now and in the foreseeable
future. Fortunately, we had not signed the contracts for construction
which was scheduled for this summer. So a $4.3 million building will
not be built.
Now I suppose there are some who can have a moment of regret that
a new, modern and attractive building will not grace the skyline of
Sacramento. But I have a feeling that if government can eliminate
enough of the unnecessary, new attractive and modern buildings will
grace the skyline of our Capitol, built by private businesses, by
investors, as evidence of an improved business climate in our state.
That $4.3 million though will not be reflected in a reduction
in the budget. It happens that the departments who would have used
that building are financed by the gasoline tax. So while the money
will still be spent, it will be spent in more miles of California
highways and freeways.
In that same department, Gordon Luce, our Secretary of Trans-
portation, has been able to carry out additional economies that saves
$15 million in operating expenses in the Highway Patrol and the
Department of Motor Vehicles, and another $15 million in the Division
of Highways.
Much of these savings were realized because these departments are
operating successfully with 2,000 fewer employees than had been budgeted
previous to this administration. The result is that we will not hear
the familiar story of delays in planned highway construction because of
the higher-than-anticipated bids, growing labor costs and inflation,
design change or extra right-of-way expense, or all the other reasons
we used to hear.
Construction will start one year ahead of schedule on $52 million
worth of freeway and highway safety projects -- all because the money
has been saved by the instituting of these modern business practices.
I am sure some of you might be interested in another example of
this kind of new thinking.
In the Department of Motor Vehicles, there are four divisional
chiefs under Director Verne Orr: Chief of Administration, Drivers
Licenses, Registrar of Vehicles and Field Office Operations. Verne Orr
conceived the idea of stimulating a climate for creative thinking.
He has rotated and will continue, on a regular basis, to rotate
these four divisional chiefs so that, instead of getting into a rut
with one department, a man will be faced with new problems, new
challenges, by way of this rotation and thus can bring a fresh view-
point to old problems.
To many of you familiar with large corporate operations, this
does not seem like a revolutionary idea. But there was some shock and
disagreement with what seemed to be a revolutionary idea in government.
Now there is enthusiasm after only a brief tryout. For example -- the
chief who moved for the first time into Drivers Licenses noted the
processing of applications for licenses has been typically 39 days
behind for a number of years. He asked a pretty logical question:
"Why?" That 39 day lag will possibly be cut to only 7 to 10 days.
Better service for you, but also, some unneeded work will be eliminated
and there will be fewer instances where applicants write follow-up
letters that have to be answered.
Getting back to the subject of floor space, the skyline of
Sacramento is presently graced by a 14 story building under construction
these past two years. This building will be occupied by the Department
of Health & Welfare. By applying the same floor space standards to this
structure already under construction, we have discovered we can put
1,051 more employees in this building than had been planned for.
5 -
During the period of January through July, the Department of
General Services was able to achieve over $2 million in cost reductions
on purchases of equipment, material and supplies. The reductions were
achieved principally by obtaining increased competition for state
purchases and the consolidation of requirements into larger, more
attractive bids. For instances high speed tires for the Highway Patrol
were purchased at $141,000 less than the previous years prices. We
even saved $1,000 on 63,000 dozen eggs by consolidating 10 separate
bids.
For the past several years, increases in state employees have
averaged about 4 to 5 percent each year. We put a freeze on hiring
replacements for retiring or resigning employees and reversed this
growth pattern, finishing the year with a decline of 2 1/2 percent in
the number of state employees.
Costs of the Office of Acrhitecture and Construction have been
running from 18 to 22 percent of construction. Among private
architects, the rate is 6 - 10 percent. We believe we are going to
reduce the government cost to something comparable to this lower figure.
We asked the help of the telephone company with regard to our
$16 million phone bill. We have discovered there was no control over
telephones -- who had them, how many they had, or some of the fancy
equipment such as conference call equipment, call-directors and the like.
Well there is control now, and the phone company has estimated a
minimum savings of $2 million a year.
#
#
#
NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes there may be additions
to, or changes in the above. However, Governor Reagan will
stand by the above quotes.
- 6 -
6
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Sacramento, California
FOR RELEASE SEPT. 9, 1967
Contact:
Paul Beck
2:30 P.M.
445-4571
9.8.67
SPEECH BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
DELTA PUMPING PLANT. DEDICATION CEREMONIES
TRACY - September 9, 1967
I am pleased to be able to be here to partake in dedication
ceremonies of the Delta Pumping Plant--ceremonies that bring one step
nearer to completion the dream Californians have had for many years
of supplying northern California's excess water to the arid southern
part of our state.
Much water has gone over the dam since this project was first
envisioned, but now at last we see daylight ahead.
Now we can look forward confidently to the day when northern
California's water serves not only Los Angeles, but most of the
southland and the San Joaquin valley as well.
Last year there were fears expressed in both northern and
southern California to me about this project.
Northern Californians, who have three-fourths of our state's
water, rightly wanted to be assured that water needed in the north
would not be taken.
Southern Californians, who have three-fourths of our state's
population, wanted to be assured that the project would go forward as
scheduled.
I promised then--and I repeat that promise that this adminis-
tration will guard carefully the rights of northern California.
I promised then and I also repeat that promise, that this
administration will do all in its power to see that the great Cali-
fornia water project will be completed on schedule.
A project such as this is one that can and should unite our
people, not divide them. This aqueduct--444 miles long, stretching
from the Delta to Perris in Riverside County--should and can be the
connecting link joining the two great areas of our state--northern and
southern California-- in a common cause and for the common good.
With this aqueduct all of California can flower and receive
benefits. Not only the direct benefits of water for drinking, for
industry and for agriculture, but also benefits from increased
recreation areas behind new dams, recreation areas that in turn boost
the economies of the regions in which they exist; benefits in the form
of thousands of extra jobs both in construction and in maintenance;
1 -
and benefits in the form of flood control and in the form of
additional sources for electricity.
Others here will tell you about the technical and engineering
achievements involved, and will relate the varied and troubled history
of this project.
But unless I do it I'm afraid no one will take the time to give
proper credit to the man now in charge of this project, State Water
Resources Director William Gianelli.
You know, Bill Gianelli is a Democrat, which proves water at
least in California is a bi-partisan subject.
But Bill Gianelli is also the best man we could find anywhere to
take charge of this tremendous and complex job.
We are more than proud of the job he has done and is doing.
You know, California's first State Engineer, William Hamilton
Hall, was also our first water planner. Back in the 1880's, his
suggested solution for the water problems in this state was an inte-
grated state water plan. He pressed for this vigorously, but his
efforts only got him fired because people could not then appreciate
the necessity for a state water operation.
However, Hall's efforts were not all in vain. He planted the
idea in the minds of many people and that idea did not leave. In the
1920's, a plan was devised for providing irrigation water to much of
the Central Valley from dams at Shasta in the Sacramento Valley and at
Friant in the San Joaquin Valley, to be known as the Central Valley
Project. The plan was authorized by the California State Legislature.
A bond election was held and bonds were authorized, but could not
be sold because of the great depression. This stopped construction
until 1935 when federal funds were made available to the Bureau of
Reclamation to take over the Central Valley Project for construction
of the facilities.
That project has now developed into one of the most extensive
artificial water transport systems in the world; however, it takes no
water south of the Tehachapis.
In the last 25 years, California has grown from 7 million to 19
million people. In the next 25 years, this figure may reach 35 million.
Accompanying this growth will be the demand for more water for domestic
consumption. In addition, 95 percent of California's total crop value
is grown on land that must be irrigated. This places a tremendous
load on the state's water supplies.
Fortunately, Californians have faced up to their problem of
maldistribution of water. They are financing and building the largest
single integrated water development and conveyance system ever under-
taken anywhere by any people.
In 1959 the State Legislature enacted the California Water
Resources Bond Act, commonly known as the Burns-Porter Act. This act,
approved by the voters of California in November 1960, authorized the
marketing of one billion, seven hundred and fifty million dollars
worth of general obligation bonds to help finance construction of
California's State Water Project.
The Project will yield 4,230,000 acre-feet of water annually, an
amount estimated to satisfy the needs of the state until 1990. While
the Project's prime purpose is to conserve runoff water and to trans-
port it from areas of abundance to areas of shortage for municipal and
industrial use and for irrigation, it will also provide flood control,
hydroelectric power generation, recreation, and the enhancement of
fish and wildlife.
Work on this project began in the days of Earl Warren, and was
continued during the terms of Goodwin Knight and Pat Brown.
I am proud of the part this administration is playing in
construction of the project. Under this administration, construction
has reached a record pace. We have isolated potential financial
problems the project faces, and we are working to solve them. We did
this far enough in advance so that I believe we will be able to meet
the delivery dates planned for Southern California -- Los Angeles
County in 1971 and Riverside County in 1972.
One fact about the State Water Project particularly impresses me:
the repayment of its costs by the 31 local agencies who have contracted
to purchase the 4,230,000 acre-feet of water the project will conserve
annually. These contractors will pay back almost the entire bill for
the project. Only those benefits singled out for flood control,
recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement will have state or
federal funding.
In other words, the people who use the water we start down this
California Aqueduct today will be paying for these facilities and for
all others necessary for final delivery. The California taxpayer,
although he has guaranteed the integrity of the water bonds, will not
be picking up the tab.
- 3 -
Basically, the State Water Project is a comunation of many local
projects. With the possible exception of the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, none of the 31 agencies alone could
have embarked on such a vast project to solve their individual water
needs as foreseen to the year 1990. State government has been the
vehicle through which all of their individual problems can be met
through the construction of a single project. And properly SO.
State government's proper function is to do what the people and
local government must have done but cannot do for themselves.
Of course, as you and I know, efficiency and economy are not
normal attributes to government--even state government. But the
State Water Project engineers have been too busy to be anything but
efficient, and this administration is making sure that this project
will be completed economically. We have found some frills and are
eliminating them.
You know California's ingenious attack on the water problems of
the state could well serve as a natural laboratory for cooperative
solutions of water resource conservation problems throughout the
nation and the entire world.
In California we understand the value of water and the part it
must play in the building of a productive civilization and a viable
economy.
In dedicating these Delta facilities today we are taking a giant
step toward a more productive future. Before this ceremony is
concluded, I will turn the key to that future, and start water flowing
southward in this great canal. I am honored to be here and, as
Governor of California, to take part in this historic ceremony.
#
#
#
NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes. there may be additions
to, or changes in the above. However, Governor Reagan will
stand by the above quotes.
- 4 -
by
9
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Sacramento, Californ
Contact:
Paul Beck
RELEASE - THURSDAY AMs
445-4571
9.13.67
EXCERPTS FROM SPEECH
BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
PORT OF OAKLAND DINNER
OAKLAND - SEPTEMBER 13, 1967
It is a pleasure to be here on the 40th anniversary of the Port
Forty
of
Oakland.
/
years, this port has been serving the state.
I have just put in 40 weeks that seem like 40 years, probably
because the political honeymoon I was promised only lasted 40 minutes.
But don't get me wrong. I am not complaining. Can you imagine a 40
year honeymoon with Jesse?
Actually, there is a lot of significance to the figure 40. The
flood lasted 40 days. And I will bet Noah felt like that was 40 years
too.
And life, they say begins at 40. I am not sure they are right
about that, however. Jack Benny has lived a full life and has never
gotten beyond 39.
However, if life does begin at 40, this great Port we are here
to honor has a great future ahead of it.
of course it does not take any genius to predict that.
But it might have 40 years ago. In 1927 it surely took men of
foresight, vision and courage to sit down and begin to plan and build
facilities that 40 years later would make this City one of the world's
great ports.
Just as it has taken men with the same kind of vision in recent
years to expand this port to its present 17 deepwater berths with
nine more scheduled to open next year.
I am sure the men who sat 40 years ago as the first Board of
Harbor Commissioners little dreamed that 40 years later the Port of
Oakland would have such facilities or would handle, in a single year,
nearly 3 million tons of cargo valued at nearly half a billion dollars.
The work and vision that have gone into the Port of Oakland have
not gone unnoticed, either in California or outside it.
The federal Maritime Administrator last May noted in a talk in
San Francisco - that's a city just across the bay from here - noted
that Oakland, "one of the more progressive ports on the west coast
is fast becoming a leader in intermodal container facilities."
- 1 -
He went on to say that "the new Oakland te inal now under
construction is a forerunner of the kind of streamlined port facility
needed to fully integrate the land and marine transportation modes."
The initiative and enterprise of Oakland in building a great
port should and must set an example for all of coastal California if
our state is to continue to expand its trade.
And world trade is indeed one of the main arteries of California's
life blood.
We are already the leading world trade state in the nation, out-
ranking even New York.
As a matter of fact 400,000 Californians, about five percent of
our total work force, are directly engaged in exporting goods and
products from California ports.
Their efforts will produce for California this year about a
$300 million favorable balance of trade, a considerable help to our
national balance of payments problem.
California's dollar amounts of import and export trade have
grown steadily since 1950, but has remained relatively static in terms
of percent. In this decade about 7.5 percent of the nation's exports
leave from California ports and about nine percent of the nation's
imports enter through California ports.
It puts us kind of in the position of a swimmer treading water.
He is not sinking but he is not going anywhere either in contrast
with the other swimmers.
We think California should be going somewhere in almost every
phase of our economy and certainly in the area of world trade. We
are doing a number of things in this administration to attempt to
improve the situation.
Our Intergovernmental Committee on Ocean Resources (ICOR) is
deeply involved in looking at the ocean in terms of shipping and
commerce and at our Pacific Basin neighbors in terms of trade.
Our task force on transportation also is vitally interested in
ocean-going transportation.
Our tax reform task force is studying ways and means of making
California's business climate and tax policies more attractive to
all business including the export-import business.
Those of us directly involved in state government also are trying
to create a business climate, and a climate of fiscal responsibility
- 2 -
in government that will make California a haven for business. and
industry.
Often some who classify themselves as more liberally oriented
accuse this administration of being business-oriented. And they are
correct on the basis of two facts some of them have never learned:
business doesn't pay taxes - people do; and, government doesn't make
jobs - business and industry do.
For these reasons we are doing everything possible to create
conditions to insure that business and industry can expand to meet
the job needs of a growing population.
One of the truly great labor leaders of all time, Samuel Gompers,
(founder of the A.F.L.) said, over and over again, labor and business
were in a partnership and the laboring man could only prosper if
business prospered.
At the same time we are trying to give California's taxpayers --
the people - as frugal and efficient a government as possible.
Neither of these jobs can be done over night. It has meant
reversing an entire philosophy of government, an attitude that has
become ingrained in government.
This is the attitude that has said government can afford anything
and, at the same time, that government cannot be operated efficiently
or economically.
We disagree with both of those premises.
We believe that government can afford only what the people can
pay for and should afford only what they are willing to pay for.
And we believe government can operate both efficiently and
economically.
As a matter of fact we have set out to prove modern business
practices can work in government.
- 3 -
9/19
/
D
is
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Noon, Tuesday'
Sacramento, Califo\ 1a
September 19
Contact: Paul Beck
445-4571
9.19.67
EXCERPTS FROM SPEECH BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
UPI EDITORS' CONFERENCE
SAN FRANCISCO, Tuesday, September 19, 1967
I don't believe it's necessary to talk to you in any detail
about the news business, although I must express a wonder as it
continues to grow. I'm sure, also, you recognize that I douldn't
let an opportunity such as this go by without commenting on some cf
the things that come with the morning coffee.
Since I came from a profession where we felt that everyone had
two businesses, their own and show business, don't be too hard on
me if now, from the vantage point of another occupation, I do a
little getting even.
Sometimes it has seemed to me that newspapers let their policies
get in the way of objectivity and accuracy. Here in California, for
example, we have an axis that begins in Los Angeles in the morning
and ends up in Sacramento in the afternoon. And it sometimes seems
to me, that news, as they print it, is what they wish it were instead
of what it actually is. Now, I don't want to give the impression
that their kind of reporting could actually influence anyone, but
after reading their accounts of what I'm supposed to be doing, I did
go out the other day and sign a recall petition and I was the subject
of the recall.
I know, of course, that a good reporter in the field of politics
must depend on the usually "reliable" source, and as a result, he
sometimes gets blamed when the "reliable" source turns out unreliable.
One such story made its appearance in the last few days regarding our
administration. It was headlined as an inside story, and it was a
great story. It just didn't happen to be true.
-1-
days ago who must h. e gotten her story after a isit to Haight-
Ashbury. She gave a first-hand account of my meeting with Governor
Johnson of Mississippi my questions to him, and his advice to me,
on how to run for president in the southern states. For this kind
of story, of course, there was no excuse, and I have demanded a
retraction even though I've lived my life believing that retractions
never appear in large print and if anyone notices them at all, they
only give them an appetite to go back and read the original story
they missed in the first place. You know, I've never met Governor
Johnson. But what is even more significent, I have a wire in which
Governor Johnson said he never met me.
If this seems a rather inhospitable way to greet you at the
beginning of your meeting in our Queen City, please allow me these
few prefacing remarks. Because, in actuality, I will be the
staunchest defender of your right to speak your piece.
You and I have one thing in common we are custodians of a
public trust. All of us who hold public office, of course, are. And
your public trust is to see that unless we meet our responsibilities
or when we fail to, you are going to keep the people informed. And
I think, by and large, down through the years, you have done just
that. But someplace along the line, there has been a loosening
liberties are being taken
agencies of government at every level
are seeking to perform their services more and more with less and
less attention to the right of the people to know. And by the same
token, there have been those in your profession who have violated
their trust, their responsibility to keep the people informed.
Let me seriously give just one example and leave it to your
judgment whether someone has not betrayed a trust.
Last month, one of the wire services sent a story datelined
Da Nang, Vietnam. The story read, "a marine helicopter pilot saw
50 Viet Cong torturing four wounded American soldiers on the beach
below. " One of the most respected of the major eastern newspapers
-2-
answering the radi d call for help, saw 50 V1 : Cong holding four
wounded American soldiers on the beach below."
The wire service story went on to say that it took 20 minutes
of scrambling across a soft South China Sea beach to drag three of
the Americans aboard, while a South Vietnamese Air Force helicopter
picked up the body of the fourth whose throat had been cut. The
paper ran that section of the story, changing the last sentence,
however, to simply read that the other Air Force helicopter picked
up the body of the fourth. The wire service story quoted one of the
officers aboard the helicopter as saying it looked like they wanted
to mutilate them, strip them and leave them in a line for display.
The newspaper ran the story "all four had been wounded in the gunfight
before the helicopter arrived."
Perhaps one can argue the editorial right to not be too brutal
in the telling of the story. But one has to ask, is there also not
a right when the government's policy is being assailed, of the people
to get the factual information about the enemy we are fighting and
the tactics being used?
When groups such as yours meet, I would hope there would be a
continuing re-evaluation, not only of news gathering, and news
gatherers, but also of the place of interpretive reporting in news-
writing and the value, if any, of the political gossip columnists
and rumor-mongers.
As I said earlier, I am not an expert in the newspaper business
and certainly not here to talk to you about it. But now that I have
become increasingly a subject of its stories and columns and
speculation, I am concerned, indeed concerned, about the responsibil-
ity I mentioned before of both of us and of those of us in the
business of government who must resist the temptation to influence
public thinking by keeping from the public the facts. As I said
before, you share in that responsibility, that whether pleasant or
unpleasant for us, you must deliver the facts to the people, and your
great responsibility is to make sure they are facts.
-3-
these days, we must e the help, the genius an the power of all of
our people enlisted in finding the answers. They cannot help unless
they are informed.
All of us, I'm sure, are concerned about welfare programs that have
gotten out of hand, about a war that seemingly has no end, about riots
and inciters of riots, about government costs that are taking more and
more of a man's income, about inflation that day after day erodes the
value of the individual's savings and makes it nearly impossible for
earnings to keep pace with the increased cost of living, and about a
generally permissive attitude that pervades today's moral climate and
blames society for the wrongful acts of the individual and denies that
man has to face up to his individual responsibilities.
We here in California government are attempting to deal with such
of those problems as are the responsibility of state government. But,
at the same time, we are enlisting the aid of the people, for without
them, no solution is possible. We are trying to re-establish a climate
that says a man must be responsible for his own acts and as much as
possible for his own welfare.
Tomorrow, we open a conference here in San Francisco that we have
called among states having Medicaid programs.
We are in deep trouble in this phase of our welfare programs.
In California alone, hastily drawn legislation in this field can
bankrupt our state unless we have major revisions. Costs of this
program are increasing by 50 percent annually. In its first 16 months,
it was budgeted for 74.6 million dollars, but 876 million dollars were
spent, meaning that the program went 130 million dollars in debt, debt
that has to be paid off this year.
Obviously, our state, and probably the federal government, must
change its approach to medical aid for the poor and the needy. Certainly
we are agreed that no one should be denied medical care because of a
lack of funds, but it just does not make sense that those who earn
their own way must provide medical care without stint for the less
fortunate beyond that which they can afford themselves.
Somewhere, we have to draw a line between what is necessary and
what is desirable.
As a matter of fact, I believe we are going to have to change our
approach not only to Medicare, but also to the entire welfare field.
-4-
Somewhere along he line we have gotten off he track. Can we
continue our insistence that welfare is an inalienable right without
recognizing the rights of those working men and women who make it
possible by sharing the fruit of their toil? Isn't it something of a
gift granted by people who earn their own way to those who cannot, or
in some cases even to those who will not?
For those who cannot, the gift is a good one benefiting both the
givers the taxpayers--and those who receive it.
For those who will not, the gift robs the giver of his purse and
the beneficiary of his self-respect and a meaningful place in our
society.
I'm sure not one American would begrudge the cost of welfare as is
charged by some who think any criticism of welfare is inspired by more
concern for dollars than for humans. All would gladly bear the burden
if we could see success rewarding our efforts. But, in the dark days
of the Depression, only 1.3 percent of California's population received
public assistance. Today, in a time of excessive affluence, 7 percent
of our citizens are welfare recipients.
The goal of welfare should be to make recipients independent of
welfare. It is one government program whose success can only be measured
by a decline in the necessity for continuing it. Welfare to truly
fulfill its purpose should be a beginning for human beings, not a
hopeless end of the road.
To those who can only see more government spending, more layers
of plans and bureaus and gigantic work programs, I say jobs are the
answer
jobs in business and industry--productive jobs, and we shall
do our utmost to make such jobs possible.
But our welfare problems are not the only ones facing us today.
No society can long tolerate crime either by lawless individuals or by
lawless groups. My office maintains a constant liaison with local law
enforcement agencies and local governments. We also maintain a close
contact with our own law enforcement agencies the State Department
of Justice, the State Highway Patrol and in case of major emergency,
the National Guard.
We are prepared to move swiftly and forcefully in case of trouble.
But of course there is more to our effort than a willingness to meet
violence head-on. We have community relations representatives and we
have a community relations program.
-5-
especially for those with environmental or langua - problems.
We are seeking the solutions to their problems. We have stiffened
sentences for crimes involving violence; we have created a Crime
Technological Research Foundation aimed at improving the prevention
and detection of crime and the apprehension and treatment of criminals;
we have made clear to criminal and police alike that we hold the
individual, not society, responsible for his actions and that it is
the policeman, not the criminal, who has our understanding and support.
We are concerned in California about national and state attitudes
that say debt is good, that inflation doesn't matter and that we can
afford what we want whether or not we can pay for it.
We think that the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government
has spilled over in many cases into state and local thinking and even
the thinking of the individual.
We've found out here that eight months ago frugality was a strange
word in many quarters and is still a dirty word in some. We have found
that many of those in government have been unable to equate outgo with
income, that they talk in terms of increased spending and increased
taxes instead of in terms of increased efficiency and careful examina-
tion of state needs.
We are trying to reverse that approach here, also, and it has
required almost the reversal of an entire philosophy of government.
Eight months ago, we began talking about a theory of government
which we chose to call the Creative Society.
We have explained at every opportunity that our theory is---
government does not rule, does not intimidate, does not lecture, but
leads, cooperates, listens, and instead of taking power unto itself,
turns to the people for the answers to as many of their problems as
they can possibly provide.
At the opposite extreme was something with which you, as business
leaders throughout the state, are familiar: the work of the more than
200 citizens in our state who formed task forces, and who, over these
past several months, have devoted full time bringing their expertise
and their knowledge to bear on the problems of government. Their
several hundred reports with their findings are now being put into order
and we will soon be taking measures to implement them for the increased
efficiency of government and for greater economy in government.
-6-
I have long nurs 8 a theory that many of th sound practices of
business can be utilized by government to the peoples' advantage.
During these several months, as I am sure we have told you on a number
of occasions, we have put these ideas to work.
You have all heard about the 10-story building that will not be
built here in Sacramento. It was to have housed two state government
agencies. One of our citizen task forces simply applied the normal
business standards to those departments regarding the square feet of
floor space which should be sufficient for each employee. On this
basis, it was discovered that two buildings presently occupied can
handle the staff of these departments, now and in the foreseeable
future. Fortunately, we had not signed the contracts for construction
which was scheduled for this summer. So a $4.3 million building will
not be built.
That $4.3 million though will not be reflected in a reduction in
the budget. It happens that the departments who would have used that
building are financed by the gasoline tax. So, while the money will
still be spent, it will be spent in more miles of California highways
and freeways.
In that same department, Gordon Luce, our secretary of transportation
has been able to carry out additional economies that save $15 million
in operating expenses in the Highway Patrol and the Department of Motor
Vehicles, and another $15 million in the Division of Highways.
There is and should be concern about those who would tamper with
our time-tested separation of powers. Can, for example, the judiciary
charge us with obstructionism when we simply ask the right to watch,
to guard against decisions that go beyond interpretation of the law
and, in truth, declare what a judge thinks the law should be?
There is a growing tendency among certain judges to violate tradi-
tional concepts and thus usurp the authority of the executive and the
legislative bodies.
-7-
for moving the courts Lnto the policy-making area traditionally reserved
for the executive and legislative bodies.
Such actions can and have been costly in terms of money and in
upsetting the orderly machinery of government.
Speaking entirely as a layman, it appears to me that judges should
use great caution before they interfere with the proper functioning of
either the legislative or the executive branches. For when our tradi-
tional concept of the doctrine of the separation of powers is breached
by our judges, we run the very real risk of tyranny by the courts.
Now, I know that the courts, more than either of the other branches
of our government, have been held sacrosanct and inviolate.
And properly SO. But I know also that judges, with or without
their robes are human and are subject to the same frailties as the rest
of we mortals. Once we put any branch of our government or any people
in our government above criticism, we have taken a step toward diminish-
ing our free institutions.
Certainly the courts have been a bulwark of our freedoms. I want
them to remain that way and they cannot if they begin to substitute
personal policy for legal interpretations.
It may be that some judges have forgotten that the vast judicial
powers they can exercise must be tempered with the judicial restraint
that in our history has traditionally been exercised.
Now, I would like to get back for a moment to the philosophy of
this administration, because that basically is what I have been talking
about.
While leadership and initiative for the Creative Society should
begin in the governor's office, it would be the task of the entire
state government to discover, enlist and mobilize the incredibly rich
human resources of California, calling on the best in every field to
review and revise our governmental structure and present plans for
streamlining it and making it more efficient and more effective.
And that is the basis of the Creative Society--government no longer
substituting for the people, but recognizing that it cannot possibly
match the great potential of the people, and thus, must coordinate the
creative energies of the people for the good of the whole.
-8-
I believe we have started something in this state. We are being
watched watched by those all across this land who once again dare to
believe that our concept of responsible, people-oriented government can
work as the founding fathers meant it to work. If we prove that here,
we can, as I have said before, start a prairie fire that can sweep across
this country.
# # #
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be additions
to, or changes in, the above. However, Governor Reagan will
stand by the above quotes.)
-9-
9/20
9
20
OFFICE OF THE GOVE OR
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
RELEASE: Noon, Wednesday,
445-4571
9.18.67
September 20
EXCERPTS FROM SPEECH BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE ON MEDICAID
SAN FRANCISCO, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20
1967
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm pleased to welcome you here today
and even more pleased that the Governors of these states which have
implemented federal legislation with their own Medicare or Medicaid
programs have seen fit to participate. You know there are almost
as many names for these programs as there are states participating,
or diseases which they are supposed to cure.
The fact that you are here is recognition by the states involved
that the programs are in fact sicker than the people they are expec-
ted to aid. Certainly, that is true here in our own state of Cali-
fornia, where unless Medi-Cal is revised and revamped, it not only
can, but most assuredly will, bankrupt our state, and in a very few
years.
Our Medi-Cal program implementation of Article Nineteen was
budgeted at $746,000,000 for its first sixteen months, but cost for
that same period was $876,000,000 in bills either not presented or
still in the lengthy pipe-line and none of which reached this state
in time for us to properly budget or plan. Thus, with the figure
budgeted on apparent need, we were faced with a ruling by our Attor-
ney General that this newly discovered deficit must be paid out of
the current year's budget.
There are some who had proposed that we should immediately tax
our people for this additional amount, in spite of the fact that we
have already imposed a burden of a tax increase on all people, and
in spite of the fact that we are one of the highest tax-paying states
in the union.
I might say some of you are fortunate enough to still be deba-
ting as to whether you should, for the first time, switch to or
include one of the numerous basic programs such as income tax or sales
tax. California has nothing new to switch to. We have had all those
taxes for a very long time. We don't believe the answer lies in
continually turning to the people for more revenue when it is our
responsibility to see if we cannot make these programs workable at a
realistic price.
-1-
In California we estimate that without any new programs of any
kind, just on increased work load and price in pay scale, our bud-
gets should increase about 8 percent a year. This represents need
based on our increase in population plus the normal pay and price
increase due to the present inflationary rate.
Our tax program, even though it needs improvement, roughly
parallels this increase in growth in that without increasing rates,
it increases state revenue about 8 percent a year and this is the
rate of increase for as far as we can see into the future. Obviously,
this rate is geometric progression--a one hundred million dollar
increase next year and so on into the future. Obviously, if we are
to continue to provide other government services, including educa-
tion, this program will have to be radically changed.
At the very least I think we should have to look for two basic
changes--one in eligibility requirements and one in what services
can be provided. In addition, we may be forced to petition the
Congress to make basic changes in its Medicare law, changes that
will allow the states greater latitude in handling their own pro-
grams.
There is another possibility and one I think is exciting, and
that is to revise our entire concept of aid and medical aid for the
poor. I said poor deliberately, for the poor have always been with
us, while the disadvantaged, the deprived, only joined us with the
advent of the "Great Society".
I was raised in a small town back in the Midwest and I was in
poverty before it became popular, before the rich folks got hold of
it. My father always said, "It's no disgrace to be poor, but it
might as well be." Perhaps one of the differences between then and
now was I only know now that we were poor then; the government wasn't
telling us at the time.
But, I don't believe that just giving the poor a handout is
of any great service to them, whether it be money or medical care.
And I don't believe that the bulk of those who aspire to a better
life want just a handout. They may need a step up, a helping hand,
but they want it so they can do better for themselves.
There is no question of our responsibility to those less for-
tunate. I don't think any one of us would retreat from that respon-
sibility. But, we also have a responsibility to those who make
that helping hand possible.
-2-
There are tho among us today who have ( ablished the idea
that welfare is an inalienable right of the recipient. But what of
the right of those who work and earn, and share the fruit of their
toil to make welfare possible, and those who earn their own way,
pay their own doctors and provide for public welfare with their
earnings? These people are restrained in the amount of care they
can afford for themselves.
The minor illness, the cold, the cut finger, is treated at home
and then they call in a doctor when their reason tells them the
trip is justified.
The key to the problem we are here to discuss is that these
same people are now providing medical care for their fellow citizens,
more comprehensive than they can afford for themselves. With the
best intentions in establishing this program, we have created a
situation where there is no restraint on those who are receiving
Medi-Cal. They are free to seek help for the most trivial of ail-
ments simply because it represents no cost to themselves.
INSERT (See attached)
I believe also that government, in making provision for health
services for the poor, should make maximum use of the voluntary
organizations. Any Medicare program will have a heavy influence
on private sector health services. Therefore, in developing the
programs we need we must remember we have an obligation to preserve
the voluntary hospital system, the private health insurance programs
and the integrity of doctors who have given this nation the best
medical care in the world under the private enterprise system.
We have a responsibility to face up to the fact that, in those
nations who have turned to nationalized programs or socialized medi-
cine, they cannot possibly match the quality of medical care that
we have developed under a contrary system. Of course, the answer
is not the opposite extreme of no government involvement at all. It
is, instead, a partnership of private effort and governmental acti-
vity--a system in which those with true need are helped and the rest
of us permitted to help also.
We are living in a period of rapid change. It is obvious that
medical science will continue to unfold opportunities for better
health services for our people. As these opportunities appear, we
in state government will have a particular responsibility and that
is to organize government's activities in these areas so that strong
leadership and efficient administration can be provided without
-3-
disrupting the voluntary system which has brought health care in
the United States to the standards we enjoy today.
I know the problems are many and complicated. But they are
not beyond our capacity to solve and certainly we are obliged to
solve them. We cannot meet the problem of part of our citizens
by unduly penalizing any other group.
Now, once again, let me say how much I appreciate your being
here and participating in this meeting. As you discuss the issues
involved in the Medicare programs, I am certain that you can come up
with answers that can help all our states in their efforts to pro-
vide adequate medical care for those who need it at a price we can
all afford to pay.
(Insert on Page Three)
While the overwhelming majority of doctors are honorable and
have a long history of extending the best of care to those who seek
it, still, as in any profession, there are some who can't resist
a good thing and so in this program we have no restraint, no way
of checking on the doctor who has the patient return for two or
three checkups on these trivial ailments. We have no way of curbing
the hypochrondriac who has, at public expense, an examination and
then goes on from doctor to doctor trying to find one who will tell
him what he wants to hear.
These are technical problems, problems of administration, of
regulations, and I cannot believe they are beyond our ability to
solve. But, I do believe that in fulfilling responsibility to the
less fortunate, we must make sure that the working men and women
of our nation and our states do not provide better health services
for the less fortunate than they are able to provide for themselves.
(Note: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be
additions to, or changes in, the above. However,
Governor Reagan will stand by the above quotes.
-4-
9/23
23
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: SUNDAY AM's
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
9-22-67
EXCERPTS FROM SPEECH BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
REPUBLICAN STATE CONVENTION
Anaheim, Saturday, September 23, 1967
Since California is one of those states annually sending more
money to Washington than Washington sends back to California, we
decided to take a look at some of our dealings with the office of
economic opportunity which most of us know as the War on Poverty--
which as I've said before, poverty seems to be losing.
Under the combat rules, I have the option of vetoing those
various projects, although Washington has the right to overrule
that veto within 30 days. Evidently, Washington hasn't had to
override many vetoes because there haven't been many. We changed
that situation when we vetoed a project in Ventura County that was
aimed at rehabilitating the hard core unemployed by putting them
to work beautifying our open park lands. We didn't quarrel with
the purpose, but when our research revealed there were 17 hardcore
unemployed and half the money would go for seven administrators to
take care of the 17 beneficiaries, we vetoed the project. The veto
was not overriden.
We stopped another that seemed to be a course in picketing and
demonstrating and somehow there doesn't seem to be a shortage in
California of experienced demonstrators.
All told, we have in these several months successfully vetoed
seven projects and caused more than half of all the rest to be
substantially changed before approving them.
There's another program that went into effect before our
administration took office.
This is the California Rural Legal Assistance Office with a
budget of $1,545,874 and a total of 130 lawyers, investigators,
- 1 -
secretaries and clerk-typists in 10 offices throughout California.
Now this sunds just fine. Legal help for the rural poor. But in
at least one case, the California Rural Legal Assistance Office, using
taxpayers' money, is harrassing a county welfare office to the point
where that county's Board of Supervisors has had to use the taxpayers'
money to hire a lawyer at $35 an hour to protect its county welfare
director.
was
Her big problem/that she saved her county $200,000 in welfare
costs last year. In the eyes of some of these people, saving tax-
payers' money is a crime.
But this isn't the sole story of the California Rural Led
Assistance League. Many of their lawyers are actively and
unethically promoting litigation, often against the state, once again
leaving the taxpayer to pay both the costs of the prosecution and
defense. Among the cases they have taken to court to the detriment
of our state and our farmers are the suit to stop our changes in
Medi-Cal, a suit, incidentally, which if they had won would have
deprived 150,000 of our poor people of any kind of public medical
care and would have cost one county alone, Los Angeles, an extra
$20 million.
Another suit, if they had won, would have cost California farmers
millions in lost crops and the poor people other millions in higher
food costs. That suit sought to prevent the importation of about
8,100 supplemental workers into California on an emergency basis.
Incidentally, even labor Secretary Wirtz, no friend of California
farmers, approved the effort to bring in workers. So we had the
spectacle of a federal government body opposing the decision of an
official of the President's cabinet.
As I said, Californians are in a situation where nobody? wins
but everybody pays--pays the lawyers of the Rural Legal Assistance
Office, that is.
Some of you lawyers in the audience who exist on clients' fees
rather than on the largess of the federal government might be
interested to know that in some towns the Rural Legal Assistance
Office is the biggest law firm there. Although the federal govern-
ment has channelled $288 million into the poverty programs in
California since 1964, we have found no evidence of any basic change
in our state povery picture.
I think part of the reason must be obvious. That $288 million
they sent here is part of something more than $288 million we've
sent back there during the same period. It's merely come back minus
the carrying charge.
# # #
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be
additions to, or changes in, the above. However, Governor
Reagan will stand by the above quotes.)
- 3 -
9/26
26
Sacramento, California
September 26
Contact: Paul Beck
445-4571
9.25.67
EXCERPTS FROM SPEECH BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
California Real Estate Association Convention
Los Angeles, September 26, 1967
It is a pleasure to be addressing the California Real Estate
Association again this year.
The last time I spoke to you--last year--I was a candidate for
this office I now hold. And we were making the promises then that we
are doing our best to keep now.
Now, as then, we are counting heavily on your support.
You people and your profession are the epitome of our free enter-
prise system. You could hardly exist without the free enterprise
system since only this system recognizes that one of man's basic
rights is the right to own and dispose of his property as he sees
fit and to use it as he sees fit so long as he does not infringe on
the property rights of those around him.
Make no mistake about it. There are no such things as property
rights in the connotation used by some. There are only human rights
and some of those human rights are the rights involving property.
These rights affect all our citizens, regardless of their color,
their race or their social status.
Now, this takes me back to what I said a moment ago that we are
doing our best now to keep the campaign promises we made last year.
One of those promises was to seek repeal of the Rumford Act, and
if that were not practical, modification of the Act to the point where
it was no longer discriminatory and oppressive.
That is still our goal.
Let me make it plain that I do not feel disagreement with this
Act in any way should be taken as endorsement of bigotry and prejudice
or the practice of discrimination by those subject to this sickness.
I oppose the Rumford Act for the same reason I oppose restrictive
covenants. Freedom is based on the right of an individual to personal
ownership of property and this basic human right cannot be infringed
upon by majority rule. The very meaning of the Bill of Rights is
that certain inalienable rights cannot be submitted to a vote. We
erode that principle at great risk to us all, indeed, to freedom itself.
-1-
As you know, WE ere unsuccessful during t last session of the
Legislature. There were a number of reasons for that. Frankly, one
of the problems was that some of our own people are committed to an
"all or none" approach. In all sincerity they would rather go down
to glorious defeat than accept a partial victory. They have never
learned that politics is the art of the possible. For 35 years the
advocates of big government and state control have inched forward,
recognizing that 12 inches makes a foot and 5,280 feet make a mile.
On this theory, they have nibbled away at freedom, at state government,
at local government.
What they have taken over a 35 year period, we cannot get back
this year or next, but we can make a beginning.
That is what we are trying to do. That is what we have been able
to do in many areas, even though we have been a minority party in
both houses until recently, and are still a minority in the Assembly.
That is what we will try to do again next year. We may not get
the Rumford Act repealed, but if we can keep all of our people
together, we will make that beginning.
In the meantime, let me tell you about some of the things we
have accomplished
# # #
(Note: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be
additions to, or changes in, the above. However, Governor
Reagan will stand by the above quotes.)
-2-
9/28
OFFICE OF THE GOVER
R
RELEASE:
.00 p.m. CDT
Sacramento, California
Thursday, September 28, 1967
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
9-27-67
EXCERPTS FROM SPEECH BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
EUREKA COLLEGE
EUREKA, ILLINOIS - SEPTEMBER 28, 1967
It must be evident to most of you that only a thin wall of
wavering willpower stands between you and an engulfing flood of
nostalgia.
Ten years ago, in cap and gown, I stood in this place to
receive an honorary degree--& happening which only compounded an
already heavy burden of guilt. I had always figured the first
degree you gave me was honorary.
That first degree was 35 years and a few months ago.
Now. as far as you students are concerned, that makes it
definite I am not of your generation. There are those with differ-
ing political views who would go even further and place me as far
back as the Ice Age--some even further to the time of McKinley.
Some here today, however, can bear witness that 35 years are
like 35 minutes, so clear and fresh is memory. No matter how much
you students may want to believe this, your imaginations are not
quite up to it. You will just have to wait and find out for your-
selves. But you will find out.
There is a tendency in today's world to put more than years
between us. Somehow, as humans, we have been stratified into a
horizontal society instead of vertical. Layers of humanity are
separated into age groups from pre-school to those the social
tinkerers refer to as senior citizens. And somehow we are losing
our ability to establish communications between layers. What is
even worse, there is a growing hostility between these layers.
It is an unnatural situation. Humanity is vertically
structured. The teenager will become the young married or junior
executive, and in turn, the middle aged and eventually the senior
citizen. Each one of us will take his faults and virtues, his
- 1 -
pluses and minuses through the years, being at all times the sum
total of all he has experienced.
This separation into horizontal layers makes no sense at all.
What of this talk that no one over 30 understands the youth of
today? If this is true, then what happens when you reach 30? DO
you suddenly join us and quit understanding those who have not
quite reached the magic age?
Each generation is critical of its predecessor. As the day
nears when classroom and playing field must give way to the larger
arena with its problems of inequality and human misunderstanding,
it is easy to look at those in that arena and demand to know why
the problems remain unsolved. We who preceded you asked that
question of those who preceded us and another younger generation
will ask it of you.
I hope there will be less justification for the question when
it is your turn to answer. What I am trying to say is that no
generation has failed completely, nor will yours succeed completely.
But don't get me wrong. When the generation of which I am
a part leaves the stage, history will record that seldom has any
generation fought harder or paid a higher price for freedom.
We have known three wars and now a fourth, a cataclysmic
worldwide depression that toppled governments and reshaped the map.
And, because we could not find the single cure-all for man's
inhumanity to man or the answer to human frailty, we have down-
graded our performance and confused you as well as ourselves.
It is easy to point to the failures and talk of the mess of our
times, and even to promise we will do better. But for the record,
since we are the generation that exploded the atomic bomb and brough
a permanent terror to the world, we also harnessed the atom for
peaceful purposes. And some of those peaceful purposes. in medicine
and industrial power have brought man to the threshhold of a
fabulous era.
We have defeated polio and tuberculosis and a host of plague
diseases that held even more terror for mankind than the threat of
the bomb. It is a certainty that your generation and ours will
overlap in defeating cancer.
Point an accusing finger and list smog, water pollution, poverty,
civil rights, inequality of opportunity. We still seek the answers,
and while many of us disagree as to the solutions, we were the ones
who faced up to the problems and charged ourselves with finding
the answers. No one in public life fails to treat with them.
This horizontal stratification has led to lateral communication
and it is highly essential that we restore vertical dialogue if not
an outright recognition of the naturalness and rightness of a
vertical structuring of society.
How well do young people understand those whose defect is age
30 plus? Can you possibly believe your fathers who knew the savagery
of World War II or your grandfathers who came of age in the muddy
trenches of the Great War could possibly have an affection for war?
That we would callously send our sons to war?
Permit me here to build at least a foot bridge between the
age groups of parent and child, remembering that bridges are open
to traffic both ways.
That fellow with the thickening waist and the thinning hair
who is sometimes unreasonable about your allowance or letting you
have the car
his life seems a little dull to you now as he
reports for his daily 9 to 5 chores or looks forward to lowering a
golf handicap, or catching a fish no one wants to eat.
I wish you could have known him a few years back on a landing
craft at Normandy or Tarawa or on a weekend pass in Peoria. He
was quite a guy. Winston Churchill said he was the only man in the
world who could laugh and fight at the same time. General Marshal
called him our secret weapon. He hated war more than he hated the
enemy, but he did what had to be done.
A few years after the end of World War II I was in a little pub
in rural England. The motherly soul who was waiting on trade
figured out I was an American (for the life of me, I don't know how).
She began to reminisce. "During the war," she said, "some of your
- 3 -
chaps were stationed just across the road. They used to come in
here and have song-fests. They called me Mom and my husband Pop.
It was Christmas Eve and we were here all alone when the door burst
open and there they were with presents for us." She paused for a
tear or two and then said: "Big strappin' lads they was from a
)
place called 'Ioway'.'
I know those over 30 fellows probably don't tell it very well
so that you can see them as they were then, but they all knew what
it was like to dream, to say goodbye to a girl and wonder when, if
ever, they would see her again. They missed a world that let things
like that happen, and swore they would do better when they got back
and were running the show.
They came back from war and created an organization to outlaw
war and we have not known a single minute's peace since. The dream
was a good dream, no effort was spared and we continue to pour out
our treasure to make the dream come true. Proving again our vertical
structure, this problem will be yours as well as ours to solve.
It wasn't that we faltered or lacked in willingness. There are
organizational difficulties that could not have been foreseen. New
and emerging nations with neither power nor responsibility for con-
trolling world forces have a disproportionate voice in world councils.
A two-thirds majority can be mustered among a half hundred nations
who represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. .
Are the problems of urban ghettoes and poverty the result of
selfishness on our part or indifference to suffering? No people in
all the history of mankind have shared so widely its material
resources.
We taxed ourselves more heavily and extended aid at home and
abroad. And when the problems grew, we planned more and pessed more
legislation to add to the scores of programs, until today, they are
listed in government catalogues of hundreds of pages. We who are
called materialist have tried to solve human problems with material
means. We have forgotten man's spiritual heritage; we have placed
- 4 -
security above free a and confused the citize S responsibility
to society with society's responsibility to the individual.
We have to re-study some of our social legislation, legislation
that meant WE 1, but has failed in its goals or has created greater
problems than the ones it was meant to cure.
We have to re-examine our individual goals and aims. What do
we want for ourselves and our children? Is it enough to have
material thing s? Aren't liberty and morality and integrity and high
principles and a sense of responsibility more important?
The world's truly great thinkers have not pointed us toward
materialism; they have dealt with the great truths and with the high
questions of right and wrong, of morality and of integrity.
- 5 -
They have dealt with the question of man, not the acquisition
of things. And when civilizations have disregarded their findings,
when they have turned to the things of the flesh, they have disappeared.
You are concerred with us and what seems to be hypocrisy and lack
of purpose on our part. And we in turn are concerned about you,
seeing a rising spirit of unrest, aimlessness and drifting, a feeling
of rebellion without a real cause that results sometimes in meaning-
less but violent actions. Now let me make it plain. I am aware that
all of you are unfairly suspect because of a very small percentage
of dissidents.
Nevertheless, you do seek a purpose and a meaning to life and
apparently we have failed to give it to you. But, again, our failure
was not one of bad intent.
We are the classic example of giving to you what we never had
from TV to wheels and dental care to Little League. But I am afraid
we shortchanged you on responsibilities or the right to earn for
yourselves.
All too often, because we had to earn, we wanted to give. Our
motives have been laudable, but our judgment has been bad. "No",
was either a dirty word or dropped from our vocabulary.
Some time ago in Newport, California, a row of luxurious ocean-
front homes were threatened by an abnormally high tide and heavy surf.
All through the day and night, volunteers worked, piling sandbags, in
an effort to save these homes. Local TV stations, aware of the drama,
covered the struggle, It was about 2 a.m. when one newscaster grabbed
a young fellow in his teens, attired only in wet trunks. He had been
working all day and night--one of several hundred of his age group.
No, he did not live in one of the homes they were trying to save, and
yes, he was cold and tired. The newscaster inevitably got around to
why. The answer was so poignant, such an indictment of so many of us,
it should be on a billboard across the nation. He said: "Well, I
guess it's the first time we've ever felt like we were needed. "
You are needed, we need your courage, your idealism, your new
and untried viewpoint. You know more than we did at your age, you are
brighter, better informed, even healthier. And because human kind is
vertically structured, we can take a little credit for that. But,
you want a purpose, a cause, a banner to follow and we owe you that.
A few years ago, a national magazine did a series of articles by
prominent people including a president, a vice president and distin-
guished statesmen.
h wrote his idea of what
)
3 our national
purpose. Somehow, nothing very exciting or profound resulted from
these articles. I have always felt it was because they tried to
invent something we already have and have had for 200 years. Our
national purpose is to unleash the full talent and genius of the
individual not to create mass movements with the citizenry subjecting
themselves to the whims of the state. Here, as nowhere in the world,
we are established to provide the ultimate in individual freedom
consisten'; with law and order.
We are here to dedicate a library. This would not be possible
if humanity was indeed horizontally structured. Today's dedication
began more than a hundred years ago when Ben Major struck an axe into
a tree and said on this spot we will build our school. According to
history as I learned it, the wagon train had not been unloaded and
homes had not been built, but a site was chosen for a school.
Walnut Grove Academy became Eureka College because others followed
in Ben Major's footsteps, giving and building, not for themselves, but
for others who would come later and take their places higher up on
the vertical column of mankind.
Today, we dedicate this library because Wesley and Clinton Melick
have thought not in horizontal lines of just their associates in time.
You want a purpose, something to believe in? You might try resolving
that you will contribute something to generations unborn--a handhold
above your own achievement so that another generation can climb higher
and achieve more.
This library is more than a beautiful and functional building.
It is first and foremost a repository of knowledge and culture.
More facts will be available in this one library than were avail-
able in all the libraries of the world a hundred years ago.
That shouldn't surprise you.
Man's knowledge has increased at such a rapid rate since the turn
of the century that any book of facts written then would be obsolete
now, both in terms of what we know to be true and also what we know
to be true no longer.
But a library is more than just a place to go for facts. A
library is also a place to go for wisdom. And the purpose of an edu-
cational institution is to teach not only knowledge, but also wisdom.
Someone once said that people who want to understand Democracy
should spend less time in the library with Aristotle and more time
on buses and subways.
In E way, that may be true.
But to understand Democracy is not necessarily to solve its
problems.
And I would venture to say Aristotle, and those others whom you
will find not in the buses and subways, but instead in this building
here, will give you more answers and more clues to the solutions of
our problems than you are likely to find on the buses and subways.
Maybe the best answer is to be found in both, but do not let the
library go to waste because you are awaiting the completion of
Eureka's first subway.
Now, when I suggest that we turn to books, to the accumulated
knowledge of the past, I am not suggesting that we turn back the
clock or retreat into some dim yesterday that we remember only with
nostalgia, if at all. But we must learn from yesterday to have a
better tomorrow.
We are beset by problems in a complex world; we are confused
by those who tell us only new and untried ways offer hope. The
answers to all the problems of mankind will be found in this building
by those who have the desire to find them and perception enough to
recognize them.
There will be the knowledge of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates,
and from the vantage point of history, their mistakes. We can look
back and see where pure Democracy became as dictatorial as a Sultan
and majority rule without protection for the minority became mob rule.
One of mankind's problems is that we keep repeating the same
errors. For every generation some place, two plus two has added up
to three, or in another place, five--four seems to elude some of us.
This has happened in my generation and I predict without smugness,
it will happen to yours.
But, these two men here today have given something almost beyond
comprehension.
Do you doubt the answers can be found here? From the 11th centur,
Maimonides, Hebrew philosopher and physician, will give you the eight
steps in helping the needy to help themselves.
Can you name one problem that would not be solved if we had
simply followed the teachings of the man from Galilee?
We can redirect our nation's course into the paths of freedom
and morality and high principle.
8 -
And, in so directing it, we can build better lives for ourselves
and our children and a better nation for those who come after us, or
we can ignore history and go the way of Greece and Rome.
I think that this is the significance of this library. The
fact that we can use it to rechart our course, not into the great
unknown, but onto paths that are clear and which, if followed, can
show us how to cope with the new problems that always confront each
generation and can lead us, as a people, on to continued greatness.
There were many who had a hand in this, but they would be the
first to say it happened because of you, Wes and Clinto Melick. On
behalf of all of us who knew Eureka and those still to come, we thank
you. Eureka means "We have found a way of life. 11 You have made the
search much easier.
# # #
(Please note: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may
be additions to, or changes in, the above. However, Governor
Reagan will stand by the above quotes.)
- 9 -