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
118564450
label
Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1973 [04/30/1973-08/31/1973]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564450
contentType
document
title
Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1973 [04/30/1973-08/31/1973]
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
118564450
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
18ca871834eee164
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, 1973
[04/30/1973-08/31/1973]
Box: P19
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/
and
X
TVD
4/30
30
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
RELEASE:
MONDAY P.Ms.
Sacramento, California 95814
April 30, 1973
Ed Gray, Press Secretary
916-445-4571
4-27-73
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
RELEASE
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT CALIFORNIA
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
Los Angeles
April 30, 1973
First, I want to commend your 50 member institutions for the vital
and necessary contribution you are making to higher education in
California.
The schools you represent, indeed all of the private colleges and
universities across America, occupy a unique place of importance in highe
education. They provide a continuation of a long and proud history of
academic excellence. They offer educational leadership far out of
proportion to the numbers of private institutions in this country or
the percentage of students they enroll.
You serve as a balance wheel to our great network of public
institutions of higher learning. You preserve a precious ingredient
necessary to the success of our entire educational system, an alternative;
competition in our constant striving for excellence.
The very existence of the independent college and university helps
to assure and safeguard academic freedom for both students and faculty.
This competition, the fact that you are still in business, gives the
educational consumer (the student) a greater variety of choice, not only
to meet his academic goals, but also to nurture and provide for the
spiritual experience that is part of any complete educational program.
I have always felt that within the proper Constitutional restraints
in our system of government, America can make no better investment than
to assure the survival and the unique values of the independent college
and university.
As you well know, the price of higher education has been going up
for both public and private institutions. And this is occurring at a time
when there are many other demands on the public's financial resources,
and a corresponding need on the part of the taxpaying citizen for some
relief from the staggering fiscal burdens that are placed on our people.
The inflation and higher costs that cause you to raise tuition rates
also affect the citizens, the businesses and the individuals who provide
the great bulk of your financial support.
- 1 -
Independent Colleges
In Sacramento, we are well aware of the problem. In these past
six years we have been striving to do what we can within a constitutional
framework to alleviate the plight of the youngster who wants to attend
a private college or university.
In 1967, the budget for the state Scholarship and Loan Commission
was less than $5 million.
This year (1973-74), our scholarship and loan budget is more than
$38 million. Almost half (46 percent) of the students receiving state
scholarship assistance are enrolled in private colleges or universities.
Three-fourths of the funds (76 percent) devoted to state scholarships go
to students attending private institutions, to help them meet their
college expenses.
The fact that you are able to attract this proportion of our
scholarship students is a tribute to the reputation you have established
in the academic world. Each of the students who chooses a private college
does so because he believes he will find there the precise type of
disciplined educational experience he seeks.
I used the word disciplined advisedly because I am convinced that
at least part of the increased cost of higher education is because a few
in the academic community sometimes forget what education is and what it
is supposed to be.
A century ago, his eminence Cardinal John Henry Newman observed that
education is not recreation or amusement. It is hard, demanding mental
discipline applied to a serious purpose.
"Do not say the people must be educated when, after all, you mean
amused, refreshed, soothed, put into good spirits and good humor or kept
from vicious excesses."
If the good Cardinal could have been around for the campus ferment
of the 1960s. he would have found that his words still have great validity
During that period of turmoil and unrest, there were those on campus
who seemed to believe that it was a proper role of the university or
college to amuse rather than to educate. And there were a lot of people
off campus who did not find that amusing.
But the eminent Cardinal's definition of what education is not was
not completely reversed. Being on campus then certainly did not protect
all students from "vicious excesses."
And this too, the advocacy of the drug culture and violence, was and
is a matter of concern to most of our citizens- the very people to whom
the university or college, public and private, must turn for financial
support.
- 2 -
The phenomenon of the student upheavals, whatever the cause,
baffled and upset the American public because our people have and
cherish a tradition of civility. And they expect civil conduct at
institutions of higher learning, by students and faculty alike.
Those who have wondered about the campus disruptions might find at
least a partial answer to student unrest in the polls of student opinion
taken throughout this period. From beginning to end---and unfortunately,
it is still true today---the grievances cited most frequently by students
involved what they perceived to be faculty neglect of the student and
his needs.
It was not Vietnam. It was not student power. The grievance
mentioned most frequently was the student's inability to find the
professor, the too common use of graduate teaching assistants in the
classroom rather than the professors and faculty the students expected
to find there.
If the professor whose name they read in the catalogue is seldom
in the classroom or in contact with them, the students obviously do not
believe they can get the education they seek. And too often, the
professor was not in the classroom often enough to make them believe
otherwise. Research and other activities took too much of their time.
However successful we are in balancing teaching and research in
public institutions, this is a situation that offers the independent
college a great opportunity---not only to further the cause of academic
excellence, but to survive as an alternative choice for those seeking
higher education.
By being better, by providing the type of intimate student-faculty
contact that you are known for now; by filling the educational need that
many students rank highest, the independent college or university will
not lack for students. There is and I believe there always will be a
need and a demand for the type of educational experience your
institutions offer.
Now, it seems, a great part of the campus unrest has ebbed. But the
states and national government are taking a closer look at higher
education, its role, its efficiency in carrying out its purpose and its
costs. This searching reappraisal is not only a result of fiscal
necessity, it also is a deeply-felt desire for a reaffirmation of the
traditional values inherent in higher education.
- 3 -
Independent Colleges
Our people want higher education to fulfill the noble role it has
always played in our culture. But they do not want to be taxed more to
finance frivolous amusements and/or the non-academic activities of a few
who claim the status of an academic elite.
It was interesting to note in the presentation outlining the fiscal
problems you face that you mentioned the tuition gap between private
institutions and public institutions.
It is wider in California than in any other state. We know about
the tuition gap.
But we have been trying to do something about it.
One of our first goals in higher education when we went to
Sacramento was to strike some sort of reasonable balance in this matter
of tuition. The Regents of the University of California have established
a tuition now.
We believed then and we believe now that tuition is essential for
a number of reasons, but not to present any kind of barrier to higher
education. Our scholarships and other programs are specifically aimed
at eliminating financial barriers. Instead, we believe that the students
who benefit most from higher education have some obligation to help pay
for it. The whole load cannot be left to the taxpayers.
Scholarships, deferred repayment plans, all these types of avenues
must be explored to assure that no student is denied an opportunity of
going to college.
As you know, we have recommended that a reasonable tuition be
extended to the state University and College system, too. We could use
your
help in this in correcting the imbalance in the present
tuition structure.
Again, I want to emphasize that our goal is greater opportunity for
more students, not less. Yet those who benefit most from higher
education do have an obligation to help finance the cost of their
advanced education. Millions of taxpaying citizens did not have that
opportunity yet they contribute their taxes to make it possible for others
In the past year, a state income tax credit was authorized for
parents of youngsters attending private schools in the lower and
secondary grades (K-12). This is not a deduction, it is a dollar for
dollar tax credit that will help ease the financial burden of California
families who are taxed to support a public school system and who also
pay tuition to send their children to private institutions.
- 4 -
Independent Colleges
This same concept is one that I believe must ultimately be
extended to higher education. I realize, and I know you do too, that a
state tax credit is not the sole answer simply because our share of the
tax dollar is not that significant, The real need is for federal income
tax credits and I support that, too. I have for years.
Some of you have noted a decline in your enrollment growth,
especially students from families in the middle income brackets. This
is a familiar pattern that is evident in too many areas. The most
affluent of our citizens can finance their own needs, whether it be
education or health care. And our society has accepted the obligation
to provide for the least affluent, the disadvantaged.
In between is the vast majority of working, taxpaying middle-income
citizens. And these are the same families that provide the great
majority of your enrollment and the enrollment in most colleges and
universities.
They are the people who feel the pinch of rising tuition costs,
simply because it costs more now for a higher education in a private
school. But they also are the same people constantly struggling to pay
the increasing share of their earnings that government consumes in taxes.
There is no mystery about why you may be seeing fewer middle income
students in private schools. Some of these families simply do not have
enough of their own earnings left after taxes to send them to your
institutions.
Right now, the average family in California pays more to finance
government at all levels than they do for their food, their housing and
their clothing combined.
The typical citizen works almost six months of the year to pay his
per capita share of the total tax burden. One of the best ways you could
ease their financial plight, and yours, too, would be to support every
reasonable effort to reduce the total tax burden.
That is what our Revenue Control and Tax Limit program is trying to
do. Now, do not bolt for the doors yet. I am going to let you off
lightly. I am not giving you my complete briefing on this subject. I
can't. I left my charts at home.
And I know most of you are probably familiar with its points anyway.
But I would like to point out your interest in reducing the tax burden.
And I would like to ask for your support, both as individuals and as a
group of vitally needed institutions which rely on the private sector
for the greatest part of your financial support.
- 5 -
Independent Colleges
We utilized the talents of some of the nation's finest economists
in drafting this plan. Our task force discovered that the private
sector which provides most of your support is shouldering a staggering
financial burden, one that has become intolerable.
In 1930, government at all levels took only about 15 percent of this
country's total personal income. By 1950, this had grown to 32 percent.
Today, it is more than 44 percent. Almost half of every income dollar in
our state goes to finance government.
The state's share of that is roughly 8-3/4 cents. That percentage
would be reduced to around 7 percent over a period of 15 years, in steps
of one tenth of one percent each year.
I know it does not sound like much. But in 15 years, if you compoun
that yearly savings in taxes, it amounts to more than $118 billion!
That is how much more money would be left with the private sector,
that is how much more money the people would have left of their own
earnings to spend for their needs, to pay, among other things, the higher
tuition costs that you must charge in private institutions of higher
learning.
The average family's per capita share of the total tax burden would
be reduced by more than $17,000 if we enact this plan, over a period of
the next 15 years. That is a pretty fair start toward paying for a colleg
education, even with today's tuition.
Our plan gives the people the right to raise the tax limit any time
they feel new programs justify it, yet our plan also contains flexibility
to allow an expansion of the budget, to cover inflation and population
growth, to finance essential new programs. There is a reserve fund,
for emergencies and additional safety valve features if that is not
enough.
But here, when you talk about emergencies, you get into the problem
of definitions. Every new program that anyone in government wants
qualifies as an emergency. And if it takes a declaration of emergency to
get it, you can be sure there will be a lot of emergencies.
To give you some perspective of the present tax load, I would like
to recall the days back in World War II. I think you will agree that
was an emergency of a pretty high magnitude. Yet during the peak of the
war, the total cost of government never reached a third of our national
resources, it was around 28 percent to be exact.
- 6 -
Independent Colleges
Today, it is 44 percent. And unless we do something, it will be
55 percent in 15 years. The state budget alone will grow from $9 to
$47 billion.
What we propose to do is simply slow down the growth of government
spending at the state level, allow the take-home pay of our people to
grow faster than their tax deductions. That is important to the economy
of California, to the prosperity of our people and it is important to you
and the institutions you represent. Tuition costs come out of take-home
pay. You do not have a stake in higher taxes. On the contrary, it is in
your interest that taxes be reduced so more people can afford to send
their children to private institutions if they wish.
But this is not just a matter of money. There is a far greater
principle involved, that of freedom. If government is taking more than
half of every income dollar, how long can freedom survive? How long can
free institutions like yours retain their independence, without being
forced to either shut down or become publicly-financed institutions,
controlled by government.
The importance of maintaining an independent system of higher
education is underscored by a debate that has been going on in Britain.
In that country, as many of you may know, higher education receives more
than 90 percent of its support from state sources,
A few years ago, a distinguished group of British scholars started
a movement, not for more government aid, but for a new university that
would be totally free of dependence on state funds.
It would be supported by something quite familiar to you---by
private contributions, by tuition, But the tuition would not be a
financial obstacle because there also would be a system of loans which
would be repaid after the student graduated, over a long period of time.
Admission standards would be strict, The sponsors also wanted to
make a special effort to attract students strongly motivated toward
learning students who wanted intellectual challenge, and who did not
mind working hard to measure up to rigid standards,
Well, you can imagine what happened. The proposal was vigorously
attacked by some of Britain's academic establishment the public
university administrators and faculty. These opponents said a new
institution might divert private funds away from existing public
institutions. They did not say they feared competition, they just
wanted to stifle it.
- 7 -
Independent Colleges
The sponsors of the drive for a new university in England felt
strongly enough about the principle involved to battle the entire public
academic establishment in that country.
They believe independent scholarship is essential to preserve the
best traditions of the British University.
They know that the kind of encroachment and control they fear can
never occur so long as there is another system. Control and conformity
cannot co-exist or be enforced with competition.
Those of you who administer and help sponsor the private colleges
in this country provide that kind of competition. And by doing so you
are helping preserve the best traditions of American education.
Believe me, there is no greater service that you could possibly
perform. Freedom can never be lost when there is a free choice, an
alternative.
#######
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,
or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by
the above quotes).
8 I I
5/16
91
vr OVRNOR
WEDNESDAY
P.MS.
Sacramento, California 95814
May 16, 1973
Ed Gray, Press Secretary
916-445-4571
5-15-73
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
RELEASE
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
MAYORS' AND COUNCILMEN'S LEGISLATIVE INSTITUTE
Sacramento, California
May 16, 1973
A few months ago we announced plans for a Task Force on Local
Government to take a comprehensive look at the entire structure of
government in California and recommend ways to improve it.
Today, I would like to give you just a brief review of our efforts
so far and to emphasize again---as we did at the start that we do not
regard this as something that will present only the view from Sacramento.
We want and we need your participation and your recommendations. We want
to open this up to all levels of local government so that we can get a
comprehensive grasp of your problems from the perspective of the largest
county down to the smallest special district.
As you know, the initial planning for the project was headed by
Lieutenant Governor Ed Reinecke. He and members of our Cabinet are
continuing to operate as a steering committee to provide overall policy
guidance and to help in charting the goals of the program.
The project itself is headed by Robert Hawkins and a few weeks ago
we appointed the Task Force which will provide the necessary staff work
and consulting services.
One member of our task force is probably well known to you:
John Phillips, recently retired city manager of Pasadena, a former
president of the city managers' department of the League of Cities and a
man with more than 30 years experience in city government in California.
Another member is Earl J. Stratham, the former county administrator
in Alameda County. Mr. Stratham is a past president of the County
Personnel Administrator's Association of California, a former director of
the Western Governmental Research Association and a former vice president
of the American Society for Public Administration.
Both these gentlemen bring to their assignments broad backgrounds
in city and county government. The other staff people have their own
special talents and expertise.
In addition to the steering committee and the task force, the overall
program will include the participation of advisory committees made up of
local government officials, public administrators, representatives of the
academic community and private citizens. The Council on Intergovernmental
Relations is a key part of the effort and has been conducting a series of
hearings around the state.
- 1 -
League of Cities
Our task force and other staff people have been maintaining a close
liaison with Don Benninghoven, your executive director; with officials
and staff members from the County Supervisors Association of California
and with representatives of the various special districts.
Up to now, this has been largely on an information basis, to keep
you informed of the program and its direction and to provide an initial
point of contact for relaying your concerns and recommendations.
In August, I am told, a more extensive public hearing will be held
so that representatives from your organization and individual cities may
present their ideas, recommendations and perhaps outline in more depth
the problems you see in reorganizing local government.
We know there will be no shortage of problems. But we hope and
expect, with your cooperation, that we will be able to develop some
answers, too.
Your own reorganization studies, the Action Plan for the future of
California Cities and the County Supervisors' research into the same
subject, can provide valuable insight and first hand knowledge in this
effort to streamline the local governmental structure of California.
Right now, the task force is analyzing all available sources of
information and beginning to develop a detailed program to cover all the
various phases of the project.
The five major subject areas include:
--an analysis of the present structure of local government;
--a review of public service responsibilities to determine which
level of government is best equipped to provide the various services
required by the people;
--a look at the financial resources available or potentially
available to help carry out these public service responsibilities;
--a comprehensive review of current geographic boundaries of counties
--and last, but certainly not least, we want to examine the
relationship of the state and all of those local governmental units with
which we must deal in carrying out our differing responsibilities.
As I told the county supervisors, we are entering into this with no
preconceived ideas. No suggestion, however innovative it may be, will
be ignored.
In my charge to the task force I posed one question: "ask your-
selves: if you were starting all over again, how would you structure
local government to make it the most efficient, most responsive and least
costly instrument of the people at the local level.'
- 2 -
League of Cities
In years past, especially in the days of rapid growth following
World War II, the number of governmental units in California proliferated
along with the population. And today, California has about 5,800 separate
units of government below the state level. It includes your 407
incorporated cities, 58 counties, more than 1100 school districts and
roughly 4,200 special districts.
Each of these districts was organized to provide a specific service
and we have no quarrel with that. But the sheer numbers involved now
have made this almost an invisible layer of government. There are an
estimated 585 taxing jurisdictions in Los Angeles County alone, including
77 cities, 107 school districts and 349 special districts, not counting
water districts.
The average citizen has little idea of all these districts unless he
scans the breakdown on his property tax bill. At that time, I am sure
the people must wonder if all these different units of government are
necessary, if essential services might not be provided more efficiently
and at less cost with fewer districts.
A citizens' committee in Los Angeles thinks SO. In a report last
year, one of these committees said consolidation could not only save
money, but could mean better service in the specific area of fire
protection.
Each separate special district requires a separate layer of
administration and as you all know, this kind of duplication costs money.
In considering county boundary lines, we want to frankly look at
what we have now and see whether something else might be better.
Is there an ideal geographic or population size for the various
segments of local government? If so, what is it? At what point does
size become a barrier to efficiency and what is it?
Los Angeles County has the same number of supervisors as Alpine
County, but there is a difference of seven million people in their
respective populations.
We want to analyze the financial problems and assets of local
government, to see what is available now, what savings might be realized
through reforms.
These are the kinds of things the task force will be looking at.
We want your suggestions and your ideas on what would be the best system
of local government for California, not only in the decade ahead, but
in the next century.
- 3 -
League of Cities
Yet in accomplishing this, we do not want change just for the sake
of change. We want to preserve home rule, to keep intact the best of
the present structure of government and concentrate on eliminating the
inefficient or inappropriate parts.
We know there must always be a level of government to provide the
essential services the people need. Yet if we can provide those
services at less cost, we must do it.
That's where we are on the task force. I just want to say that out
of their work, with the cooperation of all the different levels of
government involved, we hope to develop an administrative structure that
will make California a model of governmental efficiency and economy.
to
We want a system that gives every citizen an opportunity/know which
governmental unit provides a service and how much it costs
a
government
that is responsive to changing needs and equipped to deal with those
changing needs.
The other subject I want to discuss today is our Revenue Control and
Tax Reduction proposal. I realize that most of you are familiar with the
program in a general sense and probably in many of the specifics.
This was the result of another task force we appointed last year.
It consisted of key members of our cabinet and senior staff and a group
of some of the finest economists and management consultants in America.
We asked them to look into the entire subject of taxation, to tell
us where we are, to determine the real cost of government and to make
recommendations on how we can reduce the tax burden of the people of
California while retaining the fiscal resources and flexibility government
needs to develop and finance essential services.
There really are two issues involved: what to do with the. state's
present budget surplus and how to reduce the tax burden on a permanent
long range basis.
There has been a lot of rhetoric on both subjects. Our position is
that the surplus, which will be somewhere between $700 and $852 million,
should be returned to the people who paid it. It was not needed and it
should be returned.
We have proposed what we believe is a reasonable and equitable way
to return this one-time surplus.
First, we want to defer the one cent sales tax increase scheduled to
go into effect at the end of this fiscal year. This increase is part of
the homeowner property tax relief and school finance program of last year.
It amounts to a shifting of part of the tax burden away from homeowners
and renters to the broader based sales tax.
- 4 -
cities
Next, because the surplus came from a variety of sources, income
and sales tax, we want to provide every taxpayer a one-time 20 percent
tax credit or rebate on this year's state income tax.
And we want to simply eliminate the state income tax obligation for
couples with an adjusted gross income of $8,000 or less and single
individuals with $4,000 or less.
With what is left over, we propose to earthquake proof the Capitol
building in Sacramento and buy some more beach and park lands to serve
the recreational needs of the people.
The second and long range part of the plan is our Revenue Control
and Tax Reduction Program.
Briefly, we want to place an upper limit on the amount of taxes the
state can take out of California's total personal income.
In their studies, our task force found that government's total
revenues at all levels federal, state and local amount to about
44 percent of total personal income.
Some of you may be confused by some of the challenges to this figure.
It is true that you can, as one critic did, match the tax burden against
the gross state product and you will come up with a figure of 36.7 percent.
By not counting Social Security and other similar taxes, or by using net
gross product, you can reduce it a little more. If you do that, you are
just kidding yourself. Even if 33 or 37 percent were used, that is still
too much. And if anyone does not think it is, just ask the typical tax-
payer. The only true measure of the tax burden is to match what the
people have in total income against what government spends
against what
government takes out of personal income and the private sector. That adds
up to about 44.7 percent. And unless something is done to slow down the
growth of government spending, that will reach almost 55 percent in just
15 years.
The state budget would grow from $9 billion this year to about $47
billion by 1990.
Of that 44 percent total cost of government, the state's percentage
share is roughly 8.75 percent that is how much state government is
costing the people out of their total personal income.
Under our plan, which was developed over a period of more than six
months, we want to gradually reduce the total state tax burden. Right now,
it is about 8.75 percent. We want to reduce this slowly, in steps of
1/10 of 1 percent a year, so that it will gradually decline to around
7 percent in 15 years.
- 5 -
League of Cities
I know that does not sound like much. But when you compound the
money that would be saved over a period of 15 years it adds up to more
than $118 billion.
That is how much money state government would not be taking out
of the California economy. And that's how much more the people would
have to spend as they wish, to meet their own needs, to improve their
standard of living.
Along with this limit, we propose to include an immediate 7½ percent
ongoing reduction in state income taxes and to permanently eliminate the
income tax obligation of families earning $8,000 or less or $4,000 for
individuals.
We have proposed both these plans to the legislature as a
constitutional amendment to be voted on by the people. If the legislature
does not approve it, we have an initiative campaign under way to qualify
it for the ballot that way.
From a philosophical standpoint, the issue is clear. We believe the
people have a right to decide how much of their own earnings they can
afford to pay for government. And we believe they have an absolute
right to vote on whether they want to place a lid on state spending.
The last time I read the Constitution, the power to make such
decisions is granted in the final analysis to the people.
I know you have heard some of the objections that have been voiced
about our program, and you are interested in how it will affect local
government.
Well, some groups simply reject entirely the idea of a spending
ceiling in the Constitution. City government in California has been
operating for years with limited tax rates and it has not meant an end
to city government, even though I know many of you have difficult
financial problems.
Furthermore, we already have a Constitutional requirement that the
governor submit a balanced budget each year. And if spending gets out of
hand, it is the governor's constitutional duty to use the blue pencil to
make sure we do not have deficit spending.
That limitation imposes only one major difficulty for state
government: it requires that the legislature or the governor exercise
the kind of fiscal restraint that the people expect you to demonstrate
in managing the state's affairs. I do not regard that as a handicap.
It is why we have a system of checks and balances.
- 6 -
League of Cities
Placing a percentage limit on government spending is not a new or
a radical idea. It is the same thing that every family has to do to
avoid bankruptcy.
Every family in California has a built-in limit on spending. It is
determined by their income and by how much they have left after taxes
and all their other deductions.
Under this program, the state budget could triple over those 15
years, from $9 to $27 billion. State support for education, for health
care, for all legitimate spending could also triple.
It would be up to the legislature to decide how much each program
would receive. We have included a permanent fund for emergencies and
there is a built-in safeguard to permit the people if they wish
to
raise the limit any time they feel there is a need for it.
Your own major sources of income would not be affected by this
reasonable limit.
You would still get your share of the gasoline and sales tax
revenues. You do not have to worry that the state might saddle you with
some new mandated services. Under SB 90 and under our plan, if the state
did mandate new costs on local government, the state would have to pay
for it.
I know this has been one of your concerns for many years. We
believe it is a legitimate concern, that is why we have included these
safeguards.
The real issue in the debate about whether a spending ceiling is a
good thing or not really amounts to a difference of philosophy.
We simply do not believe the people of California can go on paying
as much of their earnings and income in taxes as they have been paying.
When government starts taking more than a third of the people's resources,
the impact of this massive burden acts as a barrier to prosperity.
In the next decade, California must find 200,000 new jobs every year
just to provide economic opportunities for its growing work force.
Four-fifths of all jobs are in the private sector and the private
sector generates all of the taxes to support government at every level.
We cannot afford to stifle business and industrial expansion by giving
government a blank check. There is a limit to what people can or will
pay for government and we think that limit has been reached, not in total
dollars, but as a percentage of their total income.
- 7 -
League of Cities
Under our plan, state revenues still could grow to three times the
present total. That does not mean the legislature would have to spend
it all, but that does provide plenty of flexibility to meet changing
needs and priorities.
There is room for population growth, for the additional cost of
inflation and for financing new programs. The spending ceiling merely
requires that the legislative and executive branches take a long hard
look at each new spending program to make sure that it is a priority need.
Finally, there is the issue of freedom.
Under our system, we all are public servants. Yet, at what point
does government become the dominant force in the economy? When does
government become the master, instead of the servant? When government
takes almost half or more than half of the people's earnings, freedom is
clearly threatened.
The entire free economic structure of this state and this country,
the very system that generates the revenue to support all levels of
government, cannot indefinitely shoulder the tax burden it is now bearing.
Indeed, no society has ever long survived a tax burden that takes one
third or more of the people's earnings.
Those who oppose the idea of spending ceilings apparently believe
otherwise.
They apparently believe that the people can afford to pay more in
taxes. They apparently believe the people do not have the right to even
vote on an alternative.
We believe we have reached the upper limits of what the people can
afford to pay for government, without dangerously threatening the ability
of our economic system to function efficiently.
When government adds to its total revenue, the people must subtract
from theirs. When government increases its percentage share of total
income, the people are forced to reduce their standard of living.
You are quite familiar with this because it works with government,
too. When one level of government takes more than its fair share, the
other levels of government are left to scratch for the funds necessary to
meet their responsibilities. The concept of revenue sharing and the
current attempts to limit federal spending demonstrate clearly that all
this is recognized by people in both parties.
- 8 -
League of Cities
It is not a partisan issue. High taxes affect everybody---
Democrats, Republicans and Independents. The only way to reduce this
burden is to slow down the growth of government spending, to allow the
take-home pay of the people to grow faster than their tax deductions.
There's ample room in this revenue control program to provide for
all necessary government spending and leave flexibility for new or
changing needs. The legislature retains full authority to reallocate
tax resources under the limit. And there are built-in safeguards to
assure that a limit on state spending will not become a burden on local
government.
I know you plan to study and analyze the program in its entirety.
And I urge you to do SO.
Even some of the critics concede that there will not be the same
need for massive increases in tax rates in the future. School
enrollment is declining.
The water project is nearing completion. The slowdown in
population growth does not mean we will not have new expenses, but it
does mean that they will not require the same percentage of increased
taxes in the future.
We have reached a unique point in our state's history. We have
an opportunity to take a step that will permanently reduce the overall
tax burden of our people.
We believe we must take that step, not next year or the year
after, but this year.
#######
(NOTE:
Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes
in, or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will
stand by the above quotes).
- 9 -
5/18
and
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
RELEASE: FRIDAY P.Ms.
Sacramento, California 95814
MAY 18, 1973
Ed Gray, Press Secretary
916-445-4571
5-17-73
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
RELEASE
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
DEDICATION OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE WATER PROJECT
PERRIS DAM, RIVERSIDE
May 18, 1973
There are times when words are not always adequate to match the
dimensions of the achievement being recognized. Today is one of those
occasions.
This is truly a great moment in the history of California. We are
formally noting the completion of the massive California State Water
Project, and the opening of a new fresh-water recreation lake which soon
will have a ten mile shoreline.
But more than that, we are acknowledging the successful completion
of a project that will rank for all time as a monument to the vision of
man, a tribute to the creative talents and the tenacity of a people
constantly seeking to create a better life and environment.
It is no exaggeration to describe what has been accomplished with
those words.
The project we are dedicating today is one of the most daring,
imaginative and difficult engineering feats ever attempted. It is the
world's largest and most comprehensive system of water conservation and
delivery. It is the only system ever to have been financed as a single
unit. And it is the only system of its kind that included recreation as
a primary purpose from the very beginning.
In these past 6½¹₂ years, I have been privileged to attend a number of
similar occasions marking the completion of one phase or another of the
Water Project. At each, I have marveled anew at the immensity of the
task that first began taking shape two decades ago.
Throughout its construction, from the initial planning to this very
moment, the state Water Project has been the product of a bipartisan
spirit of cooperation.
Three of my distinguished predecessors Earl Warren, Goodwin Knight
and Pat Brown all were involved in major phases of the planning and
construction. And each of them deserves the thanks and the gratitude of
the people of California for their diligence in carrying forward what
once was a daring concept---the idea of saving the massive surplus water
runoff in Northern California and using it for the benefit of millions
of Californians, even those living hundreds of miles away.
- 1 -
Perris Dam
The earliest planning took place during Governor Warren's
administration. And all that we see before us today, stretching hundreds
of miles from Oroville in the north to the spot we stand on today, can
be traced to those first bold steps.
Governor Knight's administration took a giant stride toward assuring
completion through the reorganization of many separate agencies into the
Department of Water Resources. And almost 16 years ago, he turned the
first shovel of earth to relocate the Western Pacific Railroad so that
Lake Oroville could become a reality.
And it was the administration of Pat Brown which provided the key
financial decision that led to this day, through his support for the
Burns-Porter Act that authorized the $1.75 billion bond sale approved
by the voters in 1960.
Perhaps only one who has shared the experience can fully appreciate
the tremendous difficulties that were faced in making all these momentous
decisions. As Pat well knows, during those days of controversy, it got
pretty hot in the kitchen.
But through political skill and determination, they overcame the
obstacles and won the necessary support to carry forward the plan.
For almost 13 years, the state Water Project has been in various
stages of construction and operation.
And while it falls to me to mark "job finished" on the basic
construction, we cannot view this accomplishment without paying tribute
to the contributions made by Earl Warren, Goodwin Knight and Pat Brown.
And all the hundreds and thousands of other Californians who helped turn
the state Water Project into an operational reality.
It would be impossible to list them all, but there are two men whose
contributions deserve special notice today. One is the late Arthur
Edmonston, the former state engineer who originated the project in the
1950s. The pumping plant that carries water over the Tehachapi
mountains is named after him.
The other is a gentleman who is with us today, Bill Gianelli, our
state Director of Water Resources. Shortly after I went to Sacramento,
the project was confronted by a serious financial stalemate.
Inflation during the Vietnam war had sharply escalated construction
costs, interest rates went up and this threatened the orderly completion
of the basic system.
We organized a task force to go to work on this.
- 2 -
Perris Dam
Some facilities had to be deferred, some plans were adjusted, and
we obtained some other additional financing.
It was with Bill's strong leadership that the financial crisis was
solved. There was no delay in completing the basic delivery system on
schedule.
This herculean fiscal task is seldom recognized. But, it is an
achievement matched only by the magnitude of the Water Project itself.
Long before the 49'ers arrived in California, our state suffered
from a natural imbalance in distribution and source of the most vital
resource of all: water. And this imbalance was aggravated by the growth
of our population. Most of the water was in the north and most of the
people were in the south. We had an oversupply in the winter and spring,
causing devastating floods that threatened the lives and property of
hundreds of thousands of our people in northern California.
The primary purpose of the plan was to lend nature a hand, to
conserve water that otherwise would run unused into the sea or cause
disastrous flooding, and to store that water safely until it could be
transported through a massive network of dams, reservoirs and aqueducts
to areas where it was needed and could benefit both man and the
environment.
It was a great dream, shared by many great Californians. And today
is a day to pay honor and tribute to all who helped make it come true.
It is a tribute to our system that despite differing philosophies
those who shared the leadership role in this great undertaking, never
permitted political conflict to interfere with meeting this challenge,
with getting the job done.
We have demonstrated on this, as well as in many other ways, what
can be accomplished by working together. The partnership between
government and the private sector in building and financing the Water
Project is perhaps the most satisfying achievement.
While it will benefit our entire state in one way or another, the
costs of constructing, operating and maintaining this 600 mile system will
be largely paid by the people who benefit most directly, those who use
the water and the power the project produces.
When we consider the massive recreational, agricultural and
financial benefits it will mean for our people now and in the future, it
is difficult to believe there are those who still oppose both the concept
and the reality of sharing California's natural water resources among all
our people.
- 3 -
Perris Dam
Every now and then, we still receive letters demanding that we call
a halt to the entire program, stop construction and turn the clock back
so everything associated with the Water Project will revert to the way
it was.
Sometimes I wonder if those who raise these kinds of objections
really mean it. Do they really want a return to the constant danger of
floods that swept away homes and jeopardized the lives of our people?
Do they want the richest agricultural area in our country to once
again become a semi-arid stretch of geography where growing a crop would
be a capricious gamble with nature?
Do we want to go back to a time when the lush farm lands of the
Delta were often rendered useless by salt water intrusion?
To return to a time when lack of sufficient water was a constant
threat to an area which nowsupports one million people, some of the most
advanced technical and industrial complexes in the world?
If those were the good old days, they were not all that good.
Fortunately, a majority of our people recognize and support the
concept of making use of all our natural resources, not only to meet
the needs of man, but to enhance the once hostile natural environment.
Wise conservation has provided a stable water supply for domestic
and municipal uses to a massive geographic region in which two thirds
of our state's people live and work.
Vast amounts of clean, smog free, hydroelectric power are being
generated to help meet our constantly increasing need for energy to fuel
our homes, schools, hospitals and the industries and businesses which
provide economic opportunity for our people.
The California Water Project has provided needed water for many areas
of the San Joaquin Valley. And in 1972, the fact that we had the water
available prevented millions of dollars in crop losses in a critically
dry year.
The lakes and other recreational areas that have been developed along
the route of the state Water Project have been in operation for a number
of years.
Today, on the spot where we are standing, another fresh water lake
is beginning to form. This summer, the Department of Fish and Game will
be stocking Lake Perris with fish that will be big enough to catch by
next summer.
- 4 -
Perris Dam
By the first of the year, I am told the state Department of Parks
and Recreation plans to have in operation some interim facilities for
southern Californians seeking relaxation away from the cities. The
permanent facilities will be installed and ready for use within another
year.
All of those things represent the kind of environmental achievements
that can be realized when we make the most out of what nature has
located within our borders.
When it is fully operational, by the turn of this century, the
state Water Project will be serving 7 out of every 10 Californians.
There is not now and there never has been any conflict between the
conservation and wise use of our water and the equally desirable goal
of preserving the environment. We must do both.
Opening up vast new acreage to irrigated farming in once desert
lands means continued prosperity for California's number one industry:
agriculture. The rich valleys and farm lands which produce so much of
our country's food supplies would not be possible without water. And the
jobs that this great industry generates would not be available to our
people if Californians had not demonstrated the courage to plan for
prosperity, by taming the rivers and turning potential floods to
constructive and beneficial uses.
Generations long after our time will benefit from the wisdom that
our people and their leaders have shown in carrying forward the Water
Project. Just as we now honor those pioneers who opened this land, they
will acknowledge and cherish the foresight of the generations that did so
much to make it bountiful, to turn unproductive land into lush green
fields.
When some of our ancestors were crossing the plains in their
Conestoga wagons, braving the elements, risking disease, starvation and
death in the wilderness, they had a blunt saying that symbolized their
determination.
In the great move West, they said: "The cowards never started and
the weak died on the way."
Throughout man's history, there have always been doubters and
cynics, people who said it cannot be done and did not want anyone to try.
But the history of our civilization, the great advances that made
it possible, is not a story of cynics or doomcriers. It is a gallant
chronicle of the optimists, the determined people, men and women who
dreamed great dreams and dared to try whatever it takes to make them
come true.
- 5 -
Perris Dam
The people of California are still guided by that daring spirit of
adventure and the unconquerable determination of those early pioneers.
And our people have demonstrated it time and again. They created
a great state from a wilderness of desert, mountain and seashore. The
ancestors of those early pioneers and millions more who followed in
their path, created not merely a great state, but a way of life, a place
where talent and ingenuity have literally lifted man's horizons to the
stars.
We must never lose that sense of adventure, that thirst for
knowledge--- or the determination to explore the outer limits of our own
abilities.
Those are the intangible things that will really shape our future
and the future of our state. And it is the result of this dynamic drive
for excellence, translated into beneficial achievement, that will be
the most valued and lasting legacy we can possibly leave to our children.
######
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes
in, or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will
stand by the above quotes).
- 6 -
06/5
W
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR ROF i) REAGAN
RELEASE:
DNESDAY A. Ms.
Sacramento, California 95814
May 23, 1973
Ed Gray, Press Secretary
916-445-4571
5-22-73
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
RELEASE:
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
CALIFORNIA REDERATION OF
Hilton Hotel, San Francisco
May 22, 1973
Several years ago, when I became governor, I had a strong belief,
a conviction, that in recent years government had strayed from the
limitations on what constitutes its real responsibility--that government
was indeed seeking not only to protect us from each other, which is and
should be government's function, but that government was trying to
protect us from ourselves. We cannot possibly afford the government
it would take to do that. Even worse, for government to attempt such a
thing, governmen t would have to assume powers not granted it by the
people and thus our freedom would be curtailed to a dangerous degree.
The machinery of state government I inherited those several years
ago, was fast losing the capacity to meet its responsibilities. The
twelve month budget for 1966-67 was to be funded by 15 months' revenues.
This, of course, meant either drastic cut backs or a giant tax increase.
We had to do both. The tax increase was mandatory because government
had spent itself into debt and was continuing to spend a million dollars
more each day than it was taking in. But we also started to locate
and eliminate what seemed to be useless fat in government.
This brought down on our heads the wrath of all those who believe
government has some kind of omnipotence and can solve any problem by
throwing money at it. I doubt if anyone here can recall one single in-
stance of criticism in these past six years directed at us for spending.
FOR
But every effort we made at economy was attacked by destroying government'
effectiveness. When we made changes in hidebound procedures to improve
those services which are government's legitimate responsibilities, we
were assailed as destroying government on the false altar of penny
pinching. There was no recognition of the fact that the tactic of
"cut, squeeze, and trim" applied only to reduction of fat. The muscle
fibre necessary to meet the legitimate tasks of government was actually
being strengthened.
Almost 1000 highway projects were built with money formerly spent
on administrative overhead. The number of full-time government employees,
which had increased more than 25% in the preceding six years has remained
virtually unchanged. At the same time, we have been able to double the
highway patrol and take over policing of the freeways in our metropolitan
areas, freeing the police for crime fighting duties. We are virtually
the only state with a steadily declining fatality rate on our streets
and highways.
-1-
Federation of Women
We have also added 400 correctional officers in our prisons because
of the higher ratio of violent to non-violent type inmates. Yet while
we have held the overall number of employees level, we have appointed
more members of minority groups to policy making positions than all the
previous administrations combined.
In the treatment of the mentally ill, we have been constantly
accused of closing hospitals to achieve economy when in truth we were
changing from the old fashioned concept of life time warehousing of mental
patients to the newer idea of better treatment in smaller, more personal
community health centers aimed at curing and returning them to normal
living. The budget for community mental health program has increased
from $18 billion to more than $134 billion. The increases have paid
off--we are recognized as a leader in this field throughout the nation.
Charges of false economies in education were made. Yet the budget
for the University of California has gone from $240 million to $429
million, a 78% increase in spending to cover a 38% increase in enrollment.
There were dire threats that quality would suffer. Well, it has not.
In state aid to public schools, K-12, the 6-year increase in dollars has
been almost 16 times greater than the percentage increase in enrollment.
Two years ago, the welfare caseload was increasing 40,000 a month
and 16% of the nation's welfare recipients were in California. We
proposed a total overhaul and reform of welfare and Medi-Cal. For
months the legislative leadership held out against these reforms until
public opinion finally persuaded them to concur. Today, there are
263,000 fewer people on welfare than there were two years ago. The
economies were sizeable, but the truly deserving who depend on us for
support had their grants increased 30%.
This record of improvement in service to the people is the same
throughout the other agencies and departments of government. Parks and
recreational facilities have been expanded and improved and any number
of services have been speeded up, eliminating tiresome delays.
I have told you these things because right now we have proposed a
reform in taxation that we believe will have an even greater effect on
life in California than those very successful welfare reforms. But the
same complaining voices--the doom criers who have been so consistently
wrong--are at it again. They are sure that our tax proposal will put
government in a straitjacket and halt progress for all time to come.
-2-
Federation of Women
This we categorically deny. But let me tell you how we came to
propose this program of tax control and limitation. In all our efforts
to curb spending these past several years the clinching argument that
curbed the excesses of the big spenders was: "We do not have the money."
I am sure you have run up against that line at home now and then--it is
sort of unanswerable. And yet it never stopped some from trying. During
these last six years, even when the state was virtually insolvent they
would add hundreds of millions of dollars to the budgets with no thought
of where and how this spending would be funded. I have vetoed more than
a billion dollars out of the legislation returned to me for signature
over these past few years. If I had not, the present budget would be
a billion dollars higher than it is. But instead, our constant search
for economies plus the reduced costs of welfare and Medi-Cal have at
last resulted in a surplus and the prospect of an ongoing surplus which
makes possible a tax reduction. By the same token, having a surplus
makes holding the line against increased spending more difficult. By
June 30, we will have a surplus in the neighborhood of $750 to $850
millión. And that is a very nice neighborhood. But spending proposals
for that one-time surplus total more than a billion dollars already.
And some of these would be for ongoing programs which means that for the
second year of the program you would have to have a tax increase. That
is the way government got as big as it is.
Knowing we were coming to a day when we could begin to cut back on
that tax increase of 1967, we appointed a Task Force to go to work on
the whole subject of taxes and learn how this constant increase in govern-
ment costs could be controlled. We no longer have the unanswerable
argument of "no money."
This task force attracted some of the most distinguished economists
in the United States. Dr. Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago,
Peter Drucker of Claremont; Roger Freeman of the Hoover Institute,
Stanford; Professor C. Lowell Harriss of Columbia University; Professor
James Buchanan of Virginia Polytechnic Institute; Professor William
Niskanen of the University of California at Berkeley, and Professor
Phoebus Dhrymes of U.C.L.A.
These men are of the opinion that government spending in the United
States is out of control and that we are at a crossroad. Either we take
action not only to halt the ever rising cost OF government, but to reduce
it, or we face economic disaster. It was because of this strongly held
belief that they were willing, indeed eager to help our task force.
-3-
Federation of Women
Acting on the findings of the task force, we have embarked on a
plan to return the one time surplus to the taxpayers. This has not been
joy
Dy
SOme
the
leadership.
Suggesting that government return money to the people instead of spending
it is a little like getting caught between the hog and the bucket---one
gets buffeted about a bit.
But the surplus is the same as an overpayment you might have made
on your utility bill. Unable to accurately forecast the savings from
the welfare reforms and our other economies, we overcharged you. We took
more from you in taxes last year and this year than we needed to pay the
ongoing costs of government. This overpayment should be returned to
those who paid it. One of those in opposition has called this "an
unnecessary expenditure of public funds."
The homeowners and renters property tax relief passed last year was
to be funded by a 1-cent increase in the sales tax starting June 1. We
had hoped the legislature would delay this increase until January 1,
thus using some of the surplus to subsidize the property tax relief.
This would in effect be a return to those who contributed to the
surplus by way of the sales tax. Most of the surplus, however, can be
attributed to the income tax so an amount roughly equal to that sales
tax rebate would be returned as a credit of up to 20% on this year's
income tax.
The second part of our plan has to do with that ongoing surplus I
mentioned. We propose an ongoing cut in the income tax of 7½% beginning
January 1. For both the one time rebate and the ongoing tax cut, we
would also completely wipe out the income tax for families with incomes
of $8,000 or less and individuals below $4,000 a year.
Third and most important, we propose a long range plan involving
an amendment to the State Constitution. The present tax structure of our
state takes 8.75% out of every income dollar in California. We propose
reducing this by .1% each year for 15 years until the percentage of the
people's total income the state takes in taxes is about 7%. This would
then become a ceiling beyond which the state could not go without a vote
of the people.
Our economic experts pointed out to us that in 1930 governments,
--federal, state and local combined--only took 15% of the people's
earnings. By 1950, this had become 32% and today government at all levels
is taking 44.7 cents out of every income dollar. Projecting this steady
rate of increase forward for 15 years, government will be taking more
Federation of Women
Government is an umpire--a policeman if you will. It is not a
producer of goods or wealth. When government takes this much of the
people's money, it creates a drag on the economy, causing economic slump.
alla unemployment. History reveals that no society has long survived
a tax burden that reached one-third of the people's earnings. Looking
back on the fallen empires of the past one sees the first warning signs
appear. As the burden grows heavier, there is growing a lack of respect
for government and the law. Fraud becomes widespread and crime increases
Are we to say none of those things are taking place here?
Is it so radical to suggest that we have the knowledge and
intelligence in this land of free enterprise to find that percentage of
the people's earnings which must be left in their hands if free enterprise
is to continue?
Most of the opposition to this idea has come from within government.
One legislator has told us such a plan would make it impossible for
government to "continue re-distributing the earnings of the people."
I submit that that is not a proper function of government. You and I do
not have the right to take the earnings of one to give to another and
therefore we cannot give such power to government.
A number of points, none of them valid, have been raised in an
)
effort to cast doubt on this proposal.
The legislative analyst assails our figures--claiming we have
exaggerated--that people are not paying 44.7% in taxes. We arrived at
our figure by taking the total cost of all governmental institutions and
simply determining what percentage that is compared to the total revenues
of the people. There actually is no other true way than to relate the
cost of government to the income of those who pay for government.
Nevertheless we rechecked with our original source the Tax
Foundation in New York and submitted the legislative analyst figures
to them.
Quoting from their reply--"an estimate of taxes as a proportion of
personal income in California of 40% would not be far off. The figures
for total revenues would of course be several percentage points higher."
In other words "40% or 40 plus several percentage" points--the
point is taxes are too high and every citizen knows it.
An equally spurious and somewhat demogogic objection is that our
proposal benefits the rich at the expense of the poor. Our legislative
leader cites the case of an individual who would only get a $2.50 rebate
from the surplus while another would be $250. Well, possibly there would
be such cases. But the man who would get $2.50 only had a $12.50 tax
bill to begin with. The one getting $250 owed $1,250 and after his
rebate he will still owe $1,000 while the other individual will owe only
$10.
Again, let me point out this is not a case of government largerse-
of handing out charity or gifts. We are talking about the return--as
fairly as it can be worked out-of over-payments the people made.
-5-
Federation of Women
As one of our cabinet members, Frank Walton, said the other day:
"If you over pay your utility bill, the company returns the over-payment
to you. It doesn't divide it up among your neighbors."
As I told you, families with earnings of $8,000 or less will get a
100% rebate.
(tax)
Attempts have been made to confuse you by charging the plan we have
proposed invades the prerogative of the legislature and will tie the
legislature's hands in the future by fixing tax rates in the constitution
It will do no such thing. The Constitution will simply place a limit on
the percentage of the combined income of all the people that the state
can take in taxes. The people, by a simple majority vote, can raise
that limit any time they choose and the legislature can do so in
emergency situations. Beyond that, however, nothing in this proposal
changes the legislature's right to alter the tax structure by raising
or lowering specific taxes---adopting new ones or cancelling old ones.
One assemblyman has protested because our program does not eliminate
the oil depletion allowance. Of course it does not---the legislature has
the power to do this and it always has had such power.
The truth about the nit, picking and carping criticism is that many
of those who are talking the loudest in the legislative chambers do not
while
even believe their own words. The have admitted to us that/they will
continue to block the people's right to vote on this they really can not
find anything wrong with our proposal, anything wrong, that is, except tha
philisophically they believe government should take even more of the
people's earnings because only government has the wisdom to spend that
money properly for the people's own good.
Because of this we have gone to you--the people, asking you to place
this on the ballot by petition. Only a vote of the people can amend
the Constitution and two methods provide for such a vote. The legislature
can by a two-thirds majority place it on the ballot as they did with
11 measures in the last election; or the people can do it by petition.
We submitted this to the legislature and it has been blocked by the
assembly leadership, just as that same leadership refused to implement
the deathpenalty approved overwhelmingly by the people at the last
election.
If you are wondering why we have decided on a special election,
(which incidentally will cost about $3 million not $10 million), it is
to begin the income tax reduction by January 1. Waiting for the next
general election would delay the cost one and possibly two years. Since
the savings to you in that one part of the plan alone amounts to some
$200 million a year, a $3 million investment in a special election seems
like a good idea.
-6-
Federation of Women
Those who say the Tax Control and Tax Limitation Plan will not work
or that it will raise your local taxes are the same ones who said the
welfare reforms would not work and that property taxes would have to
raised. well, the reforms nave WOLKED better than we predicted they
would. The President has taken our people to H.E.W. in Washington to try
to put them into effect nationally and 42 of our 58 California counties
were able to lower their taxes.
These are the same people who told us loudly and at great length
two years ago that we faced a gigantic deficit unless we had a $750
million tax increase. We did not have the tax increase and we wound up
the year with a $250 million surplus.
But you know, as I said earlier, that this household we call
California must have the resources to meet its responsibilities; to see
that education is provided for your children, care is given to those in
need and the battle to preserve the environment carried on. You want
an answer to the charge that a tax limit would put the state in a fiscal
straitjacket?
Under the limit we have proposed, the state will be able to double
its budget in the next 10 years and triple it in 15. The revenues will
be sufficient to meet all the increased costs due to inflation and
population growth, and will provide an additional $41.5 billion for new
programs and services in the next 15 years. If that is a straitjacket,
it's a pretty loose fit.
This is an idea whose time has come. Taxes are the biggest cost
item your family has. It costs you more to pay for government than it
does to feed, clothe and provide housing for your entire family.
It is an arrogant denial of the democratic process for a few legis-
lators to say the people must not even be allowed to vote on something as
fundamental as their right to their own earnings.
The petitions now being circulated do not ask for approval of the
plan; they simply ask that it be put on the ballot. The people then
will have until next November to inform themselves and determine whether
they do or do not want a return of their money and a reduction in the
present tax burden.
-7-
###########
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes
in, or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand
by the above quotes).
5/30
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY P.Ms.
Sacramento, California 95814
May 30, 1973
Ed Gray, Press Secretary
916-445-4571
5-29-73
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
RELEASE
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
STATE WOMEN'S AND MEN'S CLUB LUNCHEON
Sacramento
May 30, 1973
Two years ago, we met during a period of austerity for state
government. I am sure you recall the national economic decline and the
severe economic pinch which had forced us to forego the usual cost of
living salary increases. You, however, were as warm and kind in your
welcome as you have always been. I told you that we had high hopes that
our belt-tightening would bring us through the temporary economic
dislocation and back to a sound fiscal basis where such measures would
no longer be necessary. We were asking for approval of a comprehensive
overhaul of the state's public assistance programs so that welfare costs
could be finally brought under reasonable control.
Many of the reforms were adopted. And this, plus a sharp upturn in
the economy brought us through that period of austerity.
There was never any question in our minds about what we would do
when the financial picture brightened.
Now, we have been able to see a lot more sunshine. We have embarked
on a two phase program to not only provide a cost-of-living salary
increase, but also to correct some of the long standing inequities in
state pay levels.
We proposed a total pay package last year averaging 8.4 percent and
got almost all of it. Nine tenths of one percent was held back by the
national pay board because of the wage and price controls then in effect.
But that portion of the salary increase temporarily held back did not go
back to the treasury.
It has been included in the second phase of the two part program of
salary adjustments. That pay package totals more than $227 million and
averages 12.9 percent the full amount recommended by the State Personnel
Board.
The full amount is included in the 1973-74 state budget which I
submitted to the legislature.
Our administration is making every effort to assure that these salary
increases remain in the budget throughout the legislative process.
- 1 -
Women 's/Men's Club
And the state will vigorously seek to gain approval for the full
amount from the national Cost of Living Council.
The Personnel Board has been holding hearings and will determine
the exact amounts of the inequity adjustments for various classifications.
You were patient during a lean year. Now that the state is in much
better financial shape, we intend to upgrade state salary levels.
As many of you know, there is another part of our long range program
involving state salaries.
That is a study by private consultants of the state's overall system
for administering salaries and employee benefits.
It was commissioned last year by the State Personnel Board in
cooperation with the Department of Finance and the Public Employee's
Retirement System, and was conducted by the internationally known
management consulting firm of Cresap, McCormick and Paget. They had the
help of other specialists from the Wyatt Company, actuaries and benefits
consultants and from Charles Bonini, Associate Professor of Management
Science at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business.
Phase one of this study, involving the methods used by the Personnel
Board in developing various classifications and the means by which
salaries are established, was completed late in February of this year.
The second phase involves an evaluation of the state's compensation
policies and practices. This was presented to the State Personnel Board
last week.
In a subsequent presentation, the board will be given a survey of
the benefit preferences of state employees. This is simply a survey that
will give the Personnel Board a view of what priorities you yourselves
place on various employee benefits and should be very helpful in
developing future improvements in our benefit structure.
These three reports, taken together, represent the first major review
of the state's salary and benefit program in many years and may well be
the most comprehensive overview of this vast and complex part of state
government in California's history.
The firm conducting this study has recognized the vital interest
that state employees and others have in this overall subject. So before
they forward their final recommendations to James Stearns, the secretary
for Agriculture and Services and my representative in employer-employee
matters, they have recommended that a measured and exhaustive series of
public hearings be held.
- 2 -
's/Men's Club
I have written to Robert Wald, the president of the Personnel Board,
urging the Board to conduct such hearings on the reports and findings
of the various study groups.
In this way, we hope and we expect that every one will have an
opportunity to make their views known in detail. This includes state
employees and their organizations, the people of California and their
elected representatives as well as representatives of the administration
and the managers of the executive branch of state government.
This free and open discussion will assure that the ultimate outcome
willbe of lasting benefit. And that from these studies and hearings
will come a legislative package developed from the Personnel Board's
recommendations and including their considered evaluation of all the
recommendations presented to the board by employees, their organizations
and all others who will participate in the hearings.
Our goal is an equitable salary and benefit program that is fair
to employees and which recognizes their contribution to an efficient
and effective state government.
Feeling sure of your interest in this subject, I wanted to bring
you up to date on the status of these important studies as well as our
salary recommendations for the coming year.
Now let me ask you to put on the other hat we all wear. We are
taxpaying citizens and, as such, have a vital stake in how efficiently
and effectively the state government is conducted.
You have a double interest because when government's resources are
stretched too thin, it makes it that much more difficult for the state
to properly fund its other priorities, including salary adjustments.
We experienced that when welfare costs went out of control and we
don't want to see it happen again.
And it need not happen. The state's financial picture is much
brighter now than it was a couple of years ago. In fact, we have a
surplus that will total about $829 million according to the latest
official estimates.
You also know that we have proposed returning this surplus to the
people as part of a two-part program to achieve a measure of tax relief
for our people, not just this year but permanently.
The surplus resulted from a variety of sources, and we believe
the state has an obligation to return it in as fair and equitable a way
as we can without incurring unnecessary administrative costs.
- 3 -
Women's/Men's Club
We have proposed deferring the scheduled one cent sales tax increase
until January of next year (this is part of the bipartisan tax reform
program the legislature adopted last year to provide homeowner and
renter tax relief).
In this way, all those who pay sales taxes will receive a
proportionate share of the surplus.
The major part of the surplus resulted from income taxes. We want
to recognize this through a 20 percent income tax rebate or credit.
Next April 15, you would figure up what you owe and deduct 20 percent,
or if it has already been taken out of your pay, it will be returned
as an overpayment.
To ease the tax burden of those in the lowest income brackets, we
have proposed a 100 percent income tax rebate, an elimination of the
state income tax obligation of all families with incomes of $8,000 or
less and $4,000 for individuals.
Most of you have been around Sacramento longer than I have. And I
know you have heard that there are other proposals for disposing of the
surplus. Some want to simply spend it and others want to give it all
to only one group of taxpayers.
Well, this is not the state's money to spend. In that lean year I
spoke of, when the income of our people was down, I did not hear any
suggestions that we reduce taxes. There were plenty of voices raised
demanding they be increased by more than $700 million.
The plain truth is this surplus represents an overcharge and it
should be returned to the people who paid it. And like any other rebate
of an overcharge, it should be returned as proportionately as possible.
I know you have heard criticism of this as favoring the rich or the
more affluent middle class. It is said that a 20 percent rebate will
return only $2.50 to one taxpayer while someone in the higher brackets
would receive $250.
Well, I am sure there can be such cases. But the citizen who will
get back only $2.50, only paid $12.50. And the person whose 20 percent
rebate amounts to $250, paid a total tax bill of $1,250. After the
refunds, he will still be paying $1,000 to the other fellow's $10.
One of our cabinet members, Frank Walton, made the point another way.
When the local utility overcharges you and makes a refund, you get it
back. They do not distribute it down the block among your neighbors.
- 4 -
Women's/Men's Club
By dividing the surplus through a sales tax deferral and income tax
rebate and by eliminating the total tax burden of those making less
than $8,000, we will be returning this surplus in the fairest possible
manner plus giving extra relief to those who need it most.
Just as with the state salary adjustments, our effort to reduce
taxes also comes in two parts. The second part involves a longer range
program designed to gradually reduce the percentage of the people's
income that the state takes in state taxes.
I know you have heard about it. But let me explain the philosophy
behind it and the reasons we feel that it is so necessary to bring
total government spending under control.
Until 1930, total government spending averaged out to about 15
percent of the people's income. By 1950, that had grown to around 32
percent and this year, it will run around 44 percent.
This percentage has grown through good times and bad. Somehow, the
law of gravity does not seem to work with government spending.
Last year we appointed a task force to look into the overall tax
policy and to see if we could devise some way to reduce the tax burden
of the people---and yet still assure ample revenues to finance necessary
and ongoing expenses of government providing revenue to cover new
programs as well as the impact of inflation and population growth.
Our task force, which included some of the finest economists and
management consultants in America, worked for more than six months
and did not, as some would lead you to believe suggest simply cutting
government spending in large chunks with no regard for essential services
They recognize that government is an essential function and taxes
are necessary to pay for it. But they also recognized something that
many people are unwilling to concede: that the total cost of government
has grown to an intolerable level. If the same rate of growth continues,
in 15 short years almost 55 percent of the people's income will be
going for government.
No country in history has ever long survived a tax burden that
reached one third of its citizens' earnings. Indeed, the first signs
of disintegration begin when the total tax burden hits 25 percent.
We must start bringing government costs under control. When
government increases its share of the people's income, the people---and
that includes you and your families have less of their own earnings to
spend or invest to improve their own standard of living.
- 5
Women's/Men's Club
A recent national poll showed that 76 percent of the people in
America recognize government spending, mainly at the federal level, as
a major cause of inflation.
If we can bring government spending under control, it will go a
long way toward controlling inflation. And if we control inflation, the
salary increases you get will be worth more in real terms, rather than
representing simply a new set of numbers on your check stub---the part
you can't cash.
Last year, we adopted a major program of homeowner tax relief.
Whatever your partisan affiliation and regardless of how you feel about
our current program, I believe you will agree that if ever there was a
concensus on anything, that concensus was reached last year. Major
leaders of both parties agreed that the homeowner's property taxes had
reached an intolerable level and simply had to be scaled back. So we got
together on tax reform. But that was a shift from one unfair tax to a
broader based tax.
Now we must deal with the problem of reducing the entire tax burden.
Unless we do something, there will come a day when our free private
economy will simply be unable to generate the jobs and the expansion of
business necessary to shoulder such a massive burden.
I do not have to tell you that what happens in the private sector
concerns you. We learned that during the economic downturn a couple of
years ago.
Eighty percent of the jobs in this country are in the private sector
and it is from the private sector, from business, industry and from
individuals, that government receives its operating funds.
If taxation becomes a drag on the private sector, we do not have a
healthy economy, and if we do not have that, we will not have a healthy
balance in the state's accounts, and we will not be able to properly fund
essential programs.
The plain truth again is: it is ime to slow down the rate of
government's total spending so that the real income of the people can
increase.
School enrollment is declining. We just dedicated the last major
segment of the great water project. The latest census report shows the
population has reached a level of zero growth nationally.
- 6 -
Women's/Men's Club
All this does not mean we will not have additional costs for
government. But it does mean the need for sharply increased revenues
will not be as great as it was during the years of post-war growth.
If our plan is adopted, it will mean an additional ongoing 7½
percent income tax reduction in addition to this year's 20 percent
rebate. Families earning $8,000 or less will have their state income
tax burden eliminated permanently, not just this year. In 10 years, the
state could provide another 60 percent reduction in state income taxes
or a cut of two cents in the sales tax or any combination of those or
other taxes as the legislature chooses. And this could be accomplished
within a revenue limit that still would allow the state to have a budget
twice the size of this year's budget $18.6 billion.
The legislature would retain full authority to decide on program
priorities and it would have the right to decide which taxes to reduce
and by how much.
The important thing is, we will be stabilizing government costs at
a more reasonable percentage of the peoples' income. And this can help
reduce inflationary pressures so that the pay increases you receive in
the future will be worth more in actual purchasing power.
We believe the people have a right to decide how much of their
income they can afford to spend for government. And we believe that they
have an absolute right to at least vote on this proposal, just as they
do on other major issues. That is all we are asking in our initiative
campaign.
Career state workers are just as interested in efficient government
and lower taxes as any other group of citizens. I have told you before
we have the finest group of state employees of any state in the country.
I believe you deserve the pay raises and inequity adjustments we have
proposed this year.
And I believe that the state should make all reasonable efforts to
continue to upgrade salary and benefit programs.
And I also know that you are intelligent enough to realize that the
total tax burden has reached an intolerable level. When spending exceeds
outgo over a period of time, bankruptcy is the result.
If we continue to saddle our people and the private sector with a
tax burden that takes half or more of their income, there will come a day
when the free economic system that generates all taxes will be simply
unable to carry the load.
If we are to have stable government and stable career employment
opportunities in government, we must have a stable private economy. If
the private economy falters or collapses under its tax burden, the entire
structure of government can fall with it---it has done so in the past.
We have testimony to that in the bones of dead empires.
######
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,
or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by
the above quotes).
81/9
/
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
RELEASE: MONDAY P.M.s.
Sacramento, California 95814
JUNE 18, 1973
Ed Gray, Press Secretary
916-445-4571
6-15-73
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
RELEASE
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
San Francisco
June 18, 1973
More than three-fourths of America's population now live and work
in so-called urban clusters. And these areas which you largely govern-
present some of the most critical problems facing our country.
It has been fashionable in some circles to suggest that cities are
simply ungovernable, the problems too complex, and the resources too
limited.
That, of course, is no answer. The two levels of government we
represent are the very foundation of America's federalist system. And
you are perhaps most important of all.
It is at your level that government is in direct contact with
people, their problems and their needs. And through various
administrative machinery, the state is a partner in helping provide
essential services everything from schools to highways and health
services.
There was a time and not too long ago that this was recognized
in the tax structure. Local government received most of the revenue
because it provided most of the services the people want and need,
States received somewhat less of the total and the federal government
received the smallest share of all.
Those ratios have long since been reversed. Today, Washington
collects two-thirds of all tax dollars. And we divide what is left.
It is true that state and local governments receive grants through
specific federal programs. But somehow, a funny thing happeng to
money making the round trip through those puzzle palaces on the Potomac.
The returning dollar never seems to stretch as far as the dollar produced
through our own revenue sources. For one thing, they come wrapped in
red tape which cannot be unravelled without a costly administrative
structure.
The concept of revenue sharing advocated and supported by many
mayors and governors is an acknowledgement of the administrative
impossibility of trying to run government from the federal level.
- 1 -
Mayors
Some of you may not agree that revenue sharing is the final answer
to the financial problems confronting our cities and other areas of
local government. In my view, it is an important step in the right
direction. It returns to state and local government the authority to
establish our own financial priorities and gives us flexibility in
decision-making- essential to efficient government at any level.
In this land of such great diversity, we must never lose that
flexibility. The simple truth is that state and local governments are
best equipped to meet and solve the problems of day to day living.
Whatever methods we develop to improve financial support of these
areas of government must recognize that fact.
The environmental challenge continues to be a major factor in many
of the decisions made at your level of government as well as in the
legislatures of the states.
Yet the need to develop additional job opportunities for our people,
particularly those in the cities, requires an orderly and balanced
expansion of business and industry. In preserving the environment, we
cannot afford to adopt policies that stagnate or retard the necessary
expansion of our economy.
The direction of the 1970s and 1980s may not simply be finding ways
to accommodate more people, but more toward improving the quality of life
for a more stable population, catching up on the problems that have
evolved during the earlier years of swift growth.
Local and state government can be the catalyst for constructive
change.
California had to be a pioneer in the fight against air pollution,
and this led us into the whole arena of environmental protection. We are
proud of what we have accomplished in that field and in some other areas.
Many of the welfare reforms we adopted in our state two years ago
are now being carried to other states and the federal government. Other
states are embarked on similar innovations, which may prove useful on a
national scale.
This cross-pollination of ideas, sort of a pilot program test of new
concepts, is an important part of our overall system. It is one of our
greatest strengths and it can be maintained only by preserving a strong
structure of local and state government. I am sure many of you will have
an opportunity to ride on the Bay Area Rapid Transit System while you are
visiting with us this week. Systems such as BART and other types of
urban mass transportation offer another great area of challenge for
government below the federal level.
- 2 -
Conference of Mayors
Right now in California, we have a task force on local government
taking a look at our state's multi-layer structure of government below
the state level.
We have some 5,800 separate units of local government. There are
58 counties, 407 incorporated cities, about 1,150 school districts and
almost 4,200 special service districts, meeting every type of public
need from mosquito abatement to cemetery services.
I am sure the same growth pattern has occurred in many of your own
states, too.
Because this proliferation occurred over a long period of time,
with each particular unit established for one specific purpose, we now
have what appears to the average citizen as literally a maze of
government.
The purpose of our task force study is to try to chart a clearer
path through that maze, to make the most searching appraisal ever under-
taken of the strengths and weaknesses of our present structure of local
government. We want to build on the strengths and eliminate the
weaknesses.
We are looking into the financing of local government and the
public service responsibilities assigned to each level. We want to know
if the responsibilities for providing various services are assigned in a
logical and efficient way and whether the financial support necessary to
maintin these services is sufficient.
We are looking at boundary lines and other geographic divisions of
responsibility. If size is a problem, we want to know it. Perhaps some
of our governmental units are too big or too small in area or population
for the most efficient operation. If there is an ideal size, we want to
find out what it is. We already know that there may be substantial
savings in consolidation of certain services, eliminating administrative
costs that may unnecessarily increase the property owner's tax bill or
the cost of the service provided.
In some of our larger counties, a certain degree of decentralizatio:
of services is desirable, both for operating efficiency and to assure
maximum service to the public. We want to find out if a consolidation
of some functions, such as fire protection, may offer a way to improve
service, reduce costs and even have a favorable impact on homeowner
fire insurance rates.
We are working with your colleagues in the California League of
Cities, the County Supervisors association and the special districts.
3 I I
Conference of Mayors
We want their suggestions, their recommendations and their ideas
for strengthening local government to make it more responsive to the
people's needs and better equipped to meet those needs.
We value the opinions of mayors and county government leaders.
You have been on the firing line, you know where the wheels of government
have been squeaking and you can help us find where to put in the oil.
Our goal is simple! We told the task force to ask themselves, if
they had to do the job from scratch, would they develop the present
widely divergent and multi-layer structure of local government we have
now?
If there is a better way, a way that will help save money, provide
better service and make government more accountable to the people, we
want to find what it is. And we want to implement it, but only if the
people agree.
For what it may be worth, you have my sincere wishes for a
constructive and productive convention here this week.
I do not accept the view that any of our urban problems are beyond
solution, even those that may seem staggering at first. If we can
develop the means of sending a man to the moon and bringing him back
safely, surely we can develop a way to collect the garbage efficiently,
and provide a safe, healthful and productive environment for the people
in our urban areas.
Former President Harry Truman, who took on some pretty formidable
tasks himself in his lifetime, once said that if he could have drafted
his own epitaph, it would be simply: "He done his damnedest."
If we do the same, I am confident that the American people, working
together through elected representatives, will be able to find the right
answers to whatever problems we have in our cities or anywhere else.
######
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,
or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by
the above quotes).
- 4 -
6/22
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
RELEASE: FRIDAY P.Ms.
Sacramento, California 95814
June 22, 1973
Ed Gray, Press Secretary
916-445-4571
6-21-73
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
RELEASE
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
AMERICAN LEGION CONVENTION, ANAHEIM
June 22, 1973
Last year when we met at San Jose, I mentioned the signing of a
certain bill in which you were very interested. And I got the best
round of applause of the day.
Well, the business I used to be in taught me the value of a good
opening line when I find it, so I will start on the same subject again.
Actually, there have been some developments on this bill designed
to provide property tax exemptions for charitable veterans' organizations
It turned out there were some technical corrections to be made, so I
have signed urgency legislation to implement the corrections. The
measure took effect last March 5.
And a few days ago, the Attorney General upheld the constitutionalit)
of the legislation. I thought you would be interested in both those
developments.
Because of all the charitable activities your organization sponsors,
this exemption is justified and I hope the issue is settled.
We don't always have that kind of luck with court rulings. I
sometimes think if someone appealed the 10 Commandments to some of our
courts they would rule "thou shalt not, unless you feel strongly to
the contrary."
Much has happened since we met together last year.
After almost a decade of war in Southeast Asia, the ground fighting
in Vietnam is over for America and our troops have come home. Best of
all, the known prisoners of war are back with their families and loved
ones.
Recall, if you will, this time last year when we met at San Jose.
The President was being urged to simply pull out of Vietnam and abandon
the last bargaining power we had to secure the release of those POWs.
Voices were raised in protest against mining the harbor at Haiphong,
the entry port for the munitions that had been used to maim and kill our
young men. It was said that this would prolong the conflict. Then when
the enemy rejected a generous offer of peace and launched a new offensive,
the nation found it necessary to resume bombing in North Vietnam. And
again the enemy was encouraged in its aggression by a chorus of "made
in America" criticism.
- 1 -
American Legion
There were dire predictions that the raids would mean a longer war,
that it would mean even more years in communist prison camps for the POWS
But according to those imprisoned men, their treatment improved
mightily when we mined the harbor and resumed the bombing.
I asked some of these men when they really felt in their hearts
that they would be returned to their homes and loved ones. To a man,
they said "on December 18 when the B-52s started hitting Hanoi. They
told me they stood and cheered when they saw and heard the planes over
Hanoi. They knew then, as they saw their captors cower in fear and
dissolve in hysteria, that the end was near. And they added "had we
done it years earlier, we would have been home years earlier."
There is a lesson in the Vietnam war for all of us. If military
power must be exerted to preserve our freedom or that of our allies,
the purpose must be clearly spelled out for the people before the
first troops go ashore.
And young Americans must never again be forced to fight under
limitations that give all the advantage to the enemy. If a man is asked
to fight and, if need be, die for his country his country has an
obligation to support him in winning and ending the conflict as quickly
as possible.
The draft has been suspended, no longer are young men being called
up at the rate of 50,000 a month. The tensions and the conflict
associated with the Vietnam war have subsided.
And there are encouraging signs on the international scene that we
have a great opportunity to secure the lasting peace we have always
wanted.
But peace treaties and non-aggression pacts are effective only if
both sides sincerely want peace and are willing to abide by all the terms.
The dust-bin of history is littered with the remains of those
countries which relied only on diplomacy to secure their freedom. We
must never forget in the final analysis that it is our military,
industrial and economic strength that offers the best guarantee of peace
for America in times of danger.
We dare not heed the counsel of those who would risk America's
freedom through one-sided disarmament proposals that our country would
carry out honorably, but which the other side might evade or ignore.
Our first commitment must be to maintain and nourish in the hearts
and the minds of our young people the love of freedom that you and
millions like you have exhibited during times of crisis.
American Legion
Our young people, who offer such great promise, must learn to
appreciate this heritage of freedom for which our people have paid such
an awesome price.
In a little more than two years, the United States will observe its
200th anniversary as a nation. And we have our own state program under
way to mark this historic event. It is called the American Revolution
Bicentennial Commission of California and its major function is to
coordinate all the varied and different activities that will be part
of the observance.
California will be emphasizing its contribution to the growth and
pregress of our country. Groups throughout the state will be sponsoring
different programs, contests and ceremonials as part of the bicentennial
observance.
There will be projects to recognize almost every aspect of our
culture, our history and the part that different groups played in creating
the California and the United States of today.
As part of this, a replica of the USS President, one of the first
six frigates in the U.S. navy, is being built. The original ship was
launched in April 1800 and was the flagship of the American fleet during
the War of 1812.
The replica is scheduled to tour ports of call throughout the
United States and the world for three years and after that, it is to
become a permanent exhibition with a home berth in California.
The overall California observance will feature the Gold Rush theme
because that great migration played such a major role in our history.
The bicentennial commission has established an office in Sacramento
and can provide you with information on the various projects now under
way or being planned. I mention this because I know many of your
organizations will want to participate with their own projects. And
I can think of no more appropriate group to help mark this 200th
anniversary of a free America than the American Legion.
The pessimists who say the American dream is a nightmare have been
pretty vocal in these past few years. But they have not had as much
success as they would like to think.
A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting the San Diego Naval
Training Center on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. During the
ceremony, they presented an award to the outstanding recruit. He was a
fine young man, and he had demonstrated his determination to do his best
for his country during those early weeks of military service,
- 3 -
American Legion
His mother was there for the ceremony, full of pride in her son.
And as we stood there, looking out at the assembled ranks, young men
from the farmlands of the midwest, from the cities, from every part of
America, I could not help but think of the hundreds of thousands of
similar young men who have answered the call to duty over these past
50 years.
Many of them went on to take part in some of the bloodiest battles
our country has ever had to fight. And some of them did not come back.
But they were all there that day, in spirit at least. The memory
of their service and their sacrifice is always present.
Whenever America has faced a crisis, we somehow always produce the
leaders and the men needed to carry us through to victory. That is part
of the strength of our system. It cannot be explained with the logical
precision of a computer program.
Perhaps that is because spiritual values can never be adequately
measured in material terms. Things like faith, love of country, courage
and dedication they are all part of the inner strength of America.
And sometimes, they do not become self-evident until there is a time of
crisis.
But those values are part of our heritage. And so long as a majorit
of our people never lose them we do not have to worry about the future.
In a way, the ending of the Vietnam War is the beginning of a new
and perhaps even more difficult era for America.
We can no longer afford the luxury of ignoring the economic
barometer. Right now, our national debt is more than $450 billion. The
interest on this debt alone is four times what the entire federal budget
cost 40 years ago.
We have a balance of payments deficit. Those countries we helped
after World War II have rebuilt their industrial strength with our help
and our blessings.
And our own products must compete against theirs in the world
market place.
Our productivity the amount of goods and services produced per
man per man hour has lagged far behind that of other industrial nations.
The constant battle to contain inflation, has been aggravated by
the high tax burden our people have borne so long and so patiently.
At this time in our history, we have reached the moment of truth.
Today, the challenge before America is not only one of potential external
force.
- 4 -
American Legion
It is, instead, a threat of internal economic decay, a faltering
of purpose in our long history of progress. It is a cynicism, a national
mood of indifference toward critical problems involving our economy that
can no longer be ignored.
We will not whip inflation by shrugging our shoulders and saying
it is somebody else's problem. It is everybody's problem.
If we are to have lower prices, there must be greater efficiency,
in our factories, on our farms, in our offices. And if we are to assure
our prosperity, our people can no longer afford to pay a higher and
higher percentage of their income in taxes.
We must bring government spending under control if the wage gains
our people make are to be real instead of an endless cycle of pay
increases followed by higher tax deductions, followed by legitimate
demands for even higher wages so that the people can pay even higher taxe.
This is the classic cycle that leads to inflation. And, that,
along with our other economic problems, is why our people have
difficulty making ends meet.
Government takes the first and largest slice of everyone's income.
In 1930, total government spending took about 15 percentof the people's
income. Twenty years later, it was around 32 percent. And today the
combined total government spending federal, state and local---has
reached a level that represents 44.7 percent of total personal income.
As you well know, we have embarked on an unprecedented program to
deal with this problem, at least at the state level.
I have always tried to avoid partisan topics in my meetings with you
and while a few would have you believe this is a partisan issue, it is not
High taxes affect us all Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
The tax burden today has become so great that it threatens to undermine
our free enterprise economy, the economy that provides job opportunities
for 4/5ths of our people and pays the freight for all of government at
every level.
After 61/2 years of cutting, squeezing and trimming in every way we
can, we believe we have a pretty lean and efficient state government.
At least, our critics keep telling us it ought to be a lot fatter---even
if it means higher taxes.
But we believe it is time for America to put its economic house in
order. And part of this demands a leveling off in the tax burden, a
reduction of taxes so that the take home pay of the people can be
allowed to grow a little faster than their tax deduction.
- 5 -
American Legion
I know you have probably heard about our tax limit plan and I will
not belabor you with all the details today.
It includes a 20 percent one time rebate in state income taxes and
an ongoing 7½ percent income tax reduction after it is adopted.
By putting this revenue limit in effect, in five years, there could
be another 25 percent reduction in income taxes. In 10 years the cut
could be another 60 percent, or the sales tax could be reduced by a
third
from 6 to 4 cents.
It will still provide ample money for government's legitimate
functions to expand. In 10 years, the budget could triple from $9 to
$27 billion, and spending for education, for mental health, for all the
vital functions of government could also go up at the same pace.
But there would be a big difference between the system we have now,
a system in which government literally has a blank check in the matter
of taxes. And when they issue that check, it is drawn on your account,
in the form of higher taxes.
We do not believe this can go on. Somewhere, someplace, someone
has to draw the line against excessive government spending and all the
wasteful practices that are inherent in allowing blank check financing.
California is the place to draw the line. We can meet all of the
legitimate needs of government without bankrupting the people; we can
have an orderly growth in the budget for essential programs and at the
same time we can be planning for tax reductions instead of tax increases.
That is what our tax limit program is designed to accomplish. It
was drafted by a task force that had the help of some of this country's
most distinguished economists.
It can be a major step in bringing to a halt the constant need for
higher taxes. Putting a reasonable ceiling on the amount of your
income that government can take is the only way to restore a stable tax
structure. By doing so, California will be taking a major step toward
helping America slow down inflation.
In 15 years, this program will leave more than $118 billion in the
pockets of the people who earned it rather than having that staggering
amount of money taken out of the economy in non-productive taxes.
If people spend this money for their own needs, their own
priorities, it will provide a massive boost to our economy, it will
stimulate investments and jobs and a more stable economic climate. If
government takes it, all those problems will be aggravated.
- 6 -
American Legion
That is why we are giving this program our highest priority. That
is why we are going to the people for a decision. We believe they have
a right to vote on it, to tell government that there is a limit to what
our people must pay in taxes.
You will be hearing a lot about this in the months ahead. All that
I ask is that you study our proposal, and consider the alternative that
the critics offer: the same unlimited, blank check financing that
government has had up to now. It is because there have been no fiscal
restraints that government costs have grown so steeply in the past two
generations. If this trend continues, we may never be able to cope with
inflation or any of the other economic difficulties we face.
I cannot believe that America is doomed to follow the path of other
nations that have fallen into internal decay.
I cannot believe that our people lack the self-discipline to face
up to the economic necessity of bringing both inflation and excessive
government spending under some degree of reasonable control.
The people of America and the people of California are made of
sterner stuff. They built this country, made it prosperous and they have
protected it through 200 years of periodic war and crisis.
Surely, in this time of affluence and prosperity, we can take the
steps necessary to maintain that prosperity.
Regardless of what others do, California has an opportunity to do
something constructive to restore economic stability, by reducing taxes.
And with the help of those of you who share our views, we are going to
try to do it.
######
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,
or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by
the above quotes).
- 7 -
6
6/25
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
RELEASE: MONDAY P.Ms.
Sacramento, California 95814
JUNE 25, 1973
Ed Gray, Press Secretary
916-445-4571
6-22-73
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
RELEASE
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
GOVERNOR'S SYMPOSIUM ON TRANSPORTATION
Los Angeles
June 25, 1973
First, let me say I am delighted to see all of you here today. You
have already heard from Frank Walton and Jim Moe the purpose of our
meeting. It is to acquaint you with the operations of the new unified
Department of Transportation just getting under way. And it will, we
hope, open up lines of communications which will enable all of us to
carry out a difficult and challenging assignment in the years ahead
planning for and solving California's need for an efficient and well
balanced total system of transportation.
The subject is one of vital concern to every citizen of California.
I know you will be hearing from many experts here today. And I know
too that everyone here is very familiar with the important role of
transportation in our society.
But I would like to sketch for you in a general way the dimensions
of the challenge we face during the years ahead. And I would like to
tell you just a little about the things we are doing and still must do
to meet that challenge.
I realize there are those who are quite pessimistic about the
prospect of ever solving the myriad of problems associated with the kind
of massive transportation systems we have now and must develop in the
future. When you hear some of the dire forecasts, it does sound a bit
like trying to bail out the Queen Mary with a leaky bucket.
But, I am not one of the pessimists. Those who would just give up,
or who advocate extreme and impractical solutions that could seriously
damage our economy, are underestimating the enormous reservoir of talent,
ingenuity and vision we have here in California.
Some of the things we have already accomplished in the field of
transportation are miracles of progress, on a scale undreamed of in other
countries and in most other states.
Ever since the first settlers arrived on horseback and covered
wagon, California has been developing a fantastically efficient and
varied system of transportation.
- 1 -
Transportation Symposium
Our oldest highway, El Camino Real, first laid out along its present
route more than 200 years ago by the early missionaries, is a symbol of
the progress that transportation has meant to the people of California.
That early roadway has now grown into a vast transportation corridor,
stretching today between San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco,
urban areas where more than 15 million of our people live and work.
It is one of the busiest transportation networks in the world.
More passengers fly between Los Angeles and San Francisco every year
than between any two other cities in the world. And air travel is only
part of this vast structure.
The movement of goods and people back and forth along the rail
lines, sea lanes, freeways and pipelines in this corridor have helped
California become the world's seventh largest economy.
Between those cities I have named virtually every type of economic
activity known in the state takes place, everything from the making of
heavy industrial products to the harvesting of artichokes, the operation
of massive research and educational institutions and the functioning of
vast centers of commerce, finance, entertainment, and recreation.
This giant network and the many other important links in our
overall transportation system are absolutely vital to the prosperity of
our state and the convenience of our people. All of the commercial
activities I have mentioned depend on an efficient transportation to
function properly, to move goods from the farms and factories to market,
to enable our people to get to work and back again safely and convenienty.
California has almost 15 million vehicles of all kinds including
12-1/2 million cars and trucks operating every day along a 16,000 mile
highway system under the state's jurisdiction. And by 1990, we must be
prepared to accommodate a projected 20 million vehicles.
Every 24 hours, more than 80,000 people fly somewhere aboard the
scores of commercial airlines which serve California, including 56,000
people traveling in and out of our state on flights going to or coming
from the major cities of America and the world.
Hundreds of thousands of other people use our urban and commuter
rail and bus and rapid transit systems. Along with all this, there is a
constant stream of rail and sea traffic serving both passengers and the
freight and cargo shipping needs of our industries, our farms and our
businesses.
- 2 -
Transportation Symposium
Keeping this system operating at peak efficiency, with maximum
concern for environmental protection and the safety of those who use it,
is one of the major responsibilities of government at all levels.
The modern transport system we have in California has evolved over
the years to meet our changing needs. And since we have been in
Sacramento, our major goal has been to improve that system, to anticipate
the changes necessary and to take the steps necessary to make those
changes efficiently and at the least possible cost.
Since 1967, we have built 1,472 miles of freeway and 125 miles of
expressway. The total mileage of the state highway system has increased
by 800 miles.
At the same time, we have recognized the need to make our roads
and highways compatible with the natural environment and as safe as
modern engineering practices can make them.
One of our first major efforts in 1967 was to appoint a task force
of professionals in the transportation field. We gave them the task of
defining the state's role in transportation planning and asked them to
recommend the organizational structure that would best enable us to plan
for and meet California's transportation needs in the future.
Our unified Department of Transportation is the result.
Our people must have a variety of transportation choices to meet
their varied needs, a total network that offers flexibility and comfort
as well as economy, swift movement as well as convenience.
Moving people within our great urban areas requires one particular
combination of transportation facilities. Longer trips between cities,
freight and cargo hauling, call for a different combination. And to get
people to and from recreational areas quickly and conveniently involves
different and totally separate transportation needs. It will be the goal
of the Department of Transportation to develop, with your help, a
logical efficient and economical arrangement of the various trans-
portation networks we need to serve all the people and the businesses
and industries which employ them and make possible a modern and
prosperous society.
Many of the other recommendations made by our task force and
implemented earlier are part of the administrative structure we will
need to carry forward our transportation planning.
The California Transportation Board, established in 1970 and now
headed by Richard Brown, serves as the key policy making body in
comprehensive transportation planning.
- 3 -
Transportation Symposium
We must and shall continue to develop and improve the state Highway
System because the automobile is the dominant means of transportation for
most of our cities. And it will remain the major mode of transportation
in the years ahead, even while we are developing alternatives.
We recognize that alternatives are needed, that any modern
transportation system, particularly that serving great metropolitan
areas, must include a proper balance of transportation choices. That
means developing and encouraging better and more efficient means of
rapid mass transit.
The Bay Area Rapid Transit system is now getting under way. Tolls
from San Francisco area bridges are helping finance BART's under the Bay
tube connecting San Francisco and Oakland. We have reduced the tolls
for commuter buses on eight state-owned toll bridges and established
reserved bus lanes on the Golden Gate bridge to help encourage a greater
use of this form of mass transit.
In the Los Angeles area, an 11-mile express busway is now under
construction along the San Bernardino Freeway, and about 7 miles of this
are already in use. This new bus route connects the Los Angeles central
business district with cities to the east and the project also provides
a major test of the effectiveness of a combined transportation link,
utilizing rail, auto and bus transportation on a single facility.
Air transport and aeronautics is an increasingly vital element in
both passenger and freight service. The state has recognized this by
starting to develop a statewide master plan to coordinate this phase of
our transportation needs.
Because of sheer numbers involved, automobile traffic safety has
been one of our primary concerns. And we have made remarkable progress
in reducing the slaughter on the highways.
The overall fatality rate on California's highways has declined from
5.0 in 1966 to 3.6 per 100 million vehicle miles in 1971. It was 3.9 last
year, but we are determined to get back to the lower figure in 1973.
Translating that statistic into terms we can all understand, that means
over these past six years, 5,103 lives have been saved.
We have doubled the manpower strength of the Highway Patrol, enabling
cities to devote their own law enforcement personnel to crime fighting.
We have adopted stringent laws to crack down on the drunk drivers who
cause so many of the fatal accidents on our highways. And we have applied
the latest and most sophisticated engineering techniques to eliminate the
dangerous road and highway hazards which cause injury and death.
- 4 -
Transportation Symposium
We can all be pleased with these results. But we must never allow
our success to lull us into thinking that the job is complete. It can
never be complete. One traffic or pedestrian death is one too many.
To focus attention on the continuing need for utilizing every means
at our command to further reduce traffic casualties, I am designating the
week of September 24 through September 30, 1973 as California Traffic
Safety Week. And I have asked the Business and Transportation Agency,
through the Office of Traffic Safety, to coordinate this joint effort.
To be successful, it will require the cooperation of all---the state,
local government, community action groups and those private sector groups
which have and are still doing so much to help educate our people on the
constant need for traffic safety. This includes the California Traffic
Safety Foundation, the California Association of Women Highway Safety
Leaders, all automobile clubs and similar organizations.
The campaign must be a continuing one, carried on as long as
necessary to cut to the absolute minimum the anguish, suffering and the
economic loss that results from unnecessary accidents.
Traffic safety, like the planning necessary for our total
transportation system, is a job that requires the best efforts of all
of us.
The area transportation districts which many of you represent provide
the means of carrying out one of the other major recommendations of our
transportation task force: maximum participation of local government and
local people in transportation planning.
Of all the services that government provides for the people,
transportation is one that must recognize local needs and local sentiment.
Yet in this field, as with many other governmental functions, there
is too often a tendency to look to Washington for the answers. The
problem of moving commuters in and around Los Angeles or any other local
area cannot be effectively solved in Washington. And the people
recognize this. A recent national poll indicates that two thirds of our
people believe transportation decisions should be made at the state and
local level.
It will be the purpose of the Department of Transportation to help
assure that California's transportation needs are solved through the
greatest possible coordination and cooperation between all levels of
government. And these solutions must include the desires of the people
most affected at the local level.
- 5 -
Transportation Symposium
The department's task will be:
--to resolve the differences that may exist or develop about the
various transportation alternatives available to us;
--to eliminate fragmentation in transportation planning and provide
a more efficient, unified approach to our transportation problems in all
areas and involving all modes of moving people and goods;
--to hear and resolve, on a logical and fair basis, the legitimate
concerns our people have about the impact of transportation facilities
and rights-of-way on our environment.
We already have the basic working elements of the transportation
system we will have in the future, the planes, automobiles, trucks,
trains, buses, ships and harbors and the rapid transit cars. We also
have the technical capacity to improve on all these elements, to provide
both a better network of transportation and a mix of systems plus
technological improvements that will help us reduce air noise and
environmental pollution.
What we need to develop in the years ahead is a way to take these
various sytems and coordinate them into an efficient and interrelated
transportation network.
This will be the department's goal, to determine whether all the
various elements of our present and planned transportation network are
being developed properly, in the right places, to serve the people in
various areas and the overall transport needs of the state.
To give the proper direction to the different areas of
transportation, the department will have a Division of Highways, the
Division of Aeronautics and the Division of Mass Transportation.
And to coordinate the work of these departments, there will be a
Division of Transportation Planning. Its prime function will be to make
sure that whatever facilities we add will all mesh together to provide
the most efficient and balanced transportation system possible.
We know that will require planning, but we want it to be logical,
realistic, and sensible. We sure don't want to be like the Soviet
architect who designed a 12-story apartment house and forgot to put in
the elevators. They gave him the worst punishment they could think of---
he was condemned to live in an apartment on the 12th floor.
Those of you here today will play a vital role in helping us make
the many choices that must be made in local areas of the state, what
type of transportation mix will be most efficient for any given area,
where the facilities should be located and how to accomplish all this
with a minimum of disruption of the environment and maximum attention to
the needs and desires of the people who live where these facilities will
be located.
- 6 -
Transportation Symposium
We know there will be many problems. Our meeting today comes
during a time when there is a convergence of many trends and developments
which will have a bearing on the work ahead.
We are committed to protecting the environment against unnecessary
encroachment, reducing smog, and noise pollution and minimizing the
adverse impact of our transportation system on the overall environment.
Yet we cannot forget the positive and essential beneficial impact that
an efficient transportation network has on the total environment of the
people. It is necessary for the orderly functioning of our economy and
for the convenience of the people.
So there. will be a need for cooperation, for understanding and
compromise.
The energy crisis, which has suddenly become a matter of urgent
concern, makes our job that much more difficult. The United States uses
about 161/2 million barrels of oil every day, about 3½ gallons for every
man, woman and child. Yet our domestic resources supply only about 70
percent of this. The remainder about 30 percent is imported. In
1960, our proven domestic reserves of crude oil amounted to about 12½½
times our annual production of petroleum and oil. Last year, the amount
of proven oil in the ground was down to less than nine times our annual
oil output.
This means that we face some difficult choices in the years ahead.
Certainly we must do all we can to protect the environment. But we
cannot stop drilling for oil everywhere, we must permit our oil and
petroleum industry to explore and expand our oil reserves. This is not
simply a matter of convenience for the average motorist, although that
is a legitimate goal in itself.
We simply cannot afford to become overly dependent on foreign
sources of oil because in a time of crisis or war, those sources would
not be available. Western Europe learned that lesson during the Suez
crisis. And one result of that experience has been the wide-ranging
effort to develop new oil sources closer to home, in the North Sea and
elsewhere. A modern economy cannot operate without sufficient energy
supplies. And until technology provides us with other alternatives, we
must make sure that America has the oil it needs to protect both our
prosperity and our freedom.
- 7 -
Transportation Symposium
Nor can we adopt extreme measures that could paralyze our economy.
The proposal that would virtually ban automobile traffic in the Los
Angeles area by 1977 may possibly have upset many people. Well, it is
my understanding that this is just that, a preliminary proposal. It
emphasizes the need for action. Yet we all know a total ban on cars
would be an economic disaster and I am quite sure that is not what
Congress intended. We must work together to develop more feasible
alternatives that can reduce and eliminate smog without doing away with
private automobile travel.
Frankly, I have always felt that the ultimate answer lies in
technology, the development of alternate power sources or technical
refinements. Industry should be encouraged and assisted in their efforts
to eliminate smog on the assembly line rather than attempting to solve
the problem after the cars and trucks are on the roads and streets.
When I mentioned the problems we face, I saved the big one for last.
And you all know what it is: money. The United States Department of
Transportation estimates the cost of meeting all of California's
transportation needs between now and 1990 at $60 billion. That includes
public transportation, highways, streets, roads and air travel facilities
We will need $40 billion to maintain, improve and expand our network
of highways, streets and roads, $15 billion for mass transportation
systems and $5 billion for air facilities.
Yet, the dollars we have available for transportation are limited,
because of other essential needs and the need to keep from piling
additional taxes on our people.
Because California has more people and vehicles than any other
state, we have been a principal contributor to the federal highway fund.
We
are in the jargon of government "a donor state." We send about
$200 million more a year to Washington than we get back for our own
transportation needs.
So the new Department of Transportation, under Jim Moe, has a big
job cut out for it in the area of financing. They will serve as the
principal advocate for obtaining a greater return of the highway funds
California sends to Washington so that we can maintain and improve the
highway system that generates this tax revenue.
- 8 -
Transportation Symposium
They will also be giving a high priority to meeting the urban
transportation needs of areas such as Los Angeles and other cities. In
this, we plan to work closely with local officials. Together, I believe
we can take the steps necessary to develop logical and realistic ways
of meeting our urban mass transit needs.
All of this, I know, may sound beyond reach. Yet our people have
never been intimidated or even long deferred by ambitious plans or
massive problems.
A week ago, I told the U.S. Conference of Mayors that I believe we
have the talent and the capacity to solve whatever problems we face,
in the cities or the states. If we can land a man on the moon, develop
space ships that can travel to other planets, getting people to the
shopping center or between cities swiftly, safely and conveniently is
certainly not an impossible dream.
Sure, it will take a lot of work, some sweat---and just possibly
a few arguments here and there---but I believe it can be done. And we
have the most basic ingredient for success man has ever known: we will
do it because we have to do it.
######
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,
or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by
the above quotes).
- 9 -
#:
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY P.Ms.
Sacramento, California 95814
August 1, 1973
Ed Gray, Press Secretary
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
916-445-4571
7-31-73
RELEASE
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS
Los Angeles
August 1, 1973
You wouldn't be here today if you didn't agree with many others
that the scales of justice have been tilted out of balance in recent years
for a variety of reasons. We are all concerned with a legal and criminal
justice system that is fair to society and protects the rights of the law
abiding as well as assuring justice for accused lawbreakers.
The result of this imbalance is clearly evident in the sharply
increased levels of crime over the past decade or so, both in California
and throughout the nation.
Although we have made some progress in slowing down the overall crime
totals, criminal activity is perhaps our society's most critical problem.
A recent poll showed that crime is the number one concern of the people
in California. And another poll provides the reason why: one out of
every three people surveyed said they had within the past year either been
a victim of some crime themselves or knew someone who had been a victim.
If it is true that humor is a reflection of society, the crime proble
has indeed become a matter of widespread concern, even among people of
different philosophies. Today's hardliner on law and order is yeaterday"s
liberal who was mugged last night.
But it is too serious a matter for humor. Crime has become so
pervasive within our society, it is now a dominant factor in the daily
lives of many citizens. Fear of the mugger inhibits the enjoyment of a
walk in the park or a stroll around the neighborhood after dark. Worst
of all, despite the courageous dedication of our law enforcement officers,
violent crime continues to go up. How can this be? Respect for the law
is deeply rooted in America's culture. Our very system of government is
based on the principle of rule by law. The question comes back again
and again: Why?
Our police have the most modern crime fighting techniques ever known.
We live in the most affluent period in our nation's history. Why does
the crime rate continue to go up?
The answers cannot be found in sociological explanations as some
would have you believe.
- 1 -
Citizens Committee
Certainly, we have had major social upheavals in our society over
the past several decades. Great migrations of people, the growth of vast
metropolitan areas, the decline of religious faith and ethical values,
the advent of the so-called "New Morality," the drug culture and other
fads plus the simple fact of population growth.
Some of these things are symptoms, not causes; some can help explain
part of the increase. But they do not and cannot explain the total
increase. In the darkest days of the Great Depression, the crime levels
were far lower than they are today or have been for the past decade.
Poverty and unemployment cannot be blamed for the spread of crime.
The answers lie elsewhere, in a variety of trends which have evolved in
America during the past couple of decades.
Part of it is sociological, but not quite for the reasons that some
imply. The increase of crime has come about at the very time when there
has been a general acceptance of permissiveness throughout our society
the idea that the rule breaker and even the lawbreaker is not accountable
for his or her individual acts, or the consequences of those actions.
Instead, we have been asked to blame "society," economic problems,
discrimination, anything but the individual act of individuals.
Part of it lies within the legal process itself, the clogged court
calendars which delay trials, sometimes for years. Prolonged delay makes
a mockery of the concept of a speedy trial and speedy justice--both for
the accused and for the protection of society.
During this golden age of permissiveness, the crime rate has sky-
rocketed. Instead of coming to grips with the problem, the criminal
justice system has become part of the problem. Sweeping court rulings
involving the most technical (and yes, the most tortured) interpretation
of law have made it harder, not easier, for our police to carry out their
mission of protecting the public.
Some of these court rulings have had such a devastating result on th
crime rate that they can no longer be ignored. Attorney General Evelle
Younger recently pointed out some startling statistics that emphasize
the very problem that brings us together today.
Last year in California fewer than 1 in 5 convicted heroin pushers
actually were sentenced to prison.
--one survey shows that of 1,399 offenders convicted in Superior
Court of first degree robbery, 886 did not go to prison.
--Still another case study reveals that 294 ex-convicts were
convicted for possession of a deadly weapon. But of this number, only
62 went to prison for this new offense.
- 2
Citizens Committee
The result of this is quite predictable. At the precise time when
the crime rate has been going up, the number of convicted offenders
actually being sent to prison has been going down.
In 1971, fewer than 1 in 10 felonies processed through the Superior
Court resulted in a prison sentence.
A study by the Rand Corporation showed that in one court, only
7 percent of those convicted of one of the seven most serious felonies
received a prison sentence. In another court, in the same judicial
district, more than half the convictions resulted in a prison sentence.
That is unequal justice. But the victim of this inequality is not
the guilty offender who did not go to prison for committing the same
crimes that caused others to be imprisoned. The real victim in this
situation is society itself, the law abiding citizens who rely on the
criminal justice system to protect them against the lawbreakers.
Court rulings stacked almost entirely on the side of the law breaker,
a lack of uniform sentencing patterns for identical crimes, an over
reliance on probation and perhaps, a too optimistic view that hardened
criminals can be easily rehabilitated; all those things add up to a
seeming inability, a failure of the criminal justice system to fulfill
its basic purpose. To most of our people, the purpose of the law and the
criminal justice system is clear and simple: it is to protect the
innocent and bring the guilty to justice.
This does not mean that we have no regard for the Constitutional
rights we are all sworn to protect. Safeguarding the rights of the
accused is and must always be a legitimate and critical part of the
judicial system.
But when you talk with people on the street, with frustrated law
enforcement officers, with prosecutors who see the impact of unreasonable
court rulings every day, even with many judges themselves, there is an
unmistakable feeling that somehow in our zeal to be progressive and
compassionate, the rights of society have been eroded.
There is a feeling that some judicial decisions go beyond an
interpretation of the law and instead fall into the category of judicial
legislating.
The layman, unsophisticated in legal terminology, may not be able to
articulate the fine points of each specific case. But the people clearly
see that some court actions are making it far more difficult for law
enforcement to do its job.
- 3 -
Citizens Committee
And they wonder how all these newly discovered legal technicalities
have escaped the attention of all the great legal scholars of the past.
It is because we share this concern that last year I appointed a
Select Committee on Law Enforcement Problems. This morning, this
committee issued its report, possibly the most comprehensive view of
our criminal justice system ever conducted.
They outlined the problems in detail, they talked with citizens,
with prosecutors, with judges, with experts in the fields of correction
and many other aspects of law enforcement and the criminal justice system.
When I appointed this committee, I asked them to look into a number
of specific areas. The scope of their study and their recommendations
are far too numerous to outline in our brief time here today.
But I would like to emphasize that the basic purpose was this: to
see what we at the state level could do to improve the workings of our
criminal justice system, to find out where the bottlenecks are and what
we can do to unclog the courts and to otherwise streamline the criminal
justice system. We want to take whatever action is necessary to make our
criminal justice system function more efficiently and more forcefully in
dealing with the problem of crime in California.
They made a number of recommendations. Some of them already are
incorporated in legislation awaiting action now in Sacramento. Others
require executive department changes and administrative reorganizations
and local government action. And some may even require constitutional
amendments.
We are going to take a good look at each of them and see if we can
implement every one that holds forth a promise of stemming the crime rate
in California.
As most of you are aware, one of the obstacles we have faced trying
to tighten up law enforcement these past 6½ years is the fact that for
only a brief period did we enjoy the support of a legislative majority
that shared our belief about government's duty to protect the law abiding.
In that brief period, we succeeded in passing the most sifnificant
anti-crime legislation of the past decade.
--We passed a law cracking down on drunk driving, a factor in more
than 35 percent of all fatal traffic accidents, Since then, there has
been a tremendous increase in the number of arrests for drunk driving
(it is part of the overall increase in the crimestatistics). But these
tougher laws are having an impact. We have had an overall reduction in
the traffic death rate.
- 4 -
Citizens Committee
--We tightened up penalties for drug related offenses. We passed
and are now implementing the nation's most comprehensive inventory
control program on dangerous drugs. The goal is to prevent legitimate
drugs from being diverted into illicit channels where they could
contribute to the crime problem in California.
--And we enacted the first anti-pornography laws to be passed in
California in 8 years. Although court challenges have held up enforcement
of these laws, the recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court may at last
make it possible for each community to establish its own standards of
decency. Unless they find another technicality that hangs the matter up
in court for another few years, it should be possible for every community
to crack down on smut. That is what our laws were intended to do.
But we were not able to do all that we would like to do or all
that we know must be done to combat crime.
We are still sponsoring just as many laws to fight crime, but we
are running into the same old bottlenecks, key committees controlled by
a legislative majority which---by its actions has demonstrated that it
is hostile to effective crime legislation.
A year ago, the people of California passed a constitutional
amendment to reinstate capital punishment as the ultimate deterrent to
murder and other violent crimes. The vote was more than 2 to 1. In my
State-of-the-State message this year, I asked the legislature to carry out
this clear and unmistakable mandate.
A bill to restore capital punishment was submitted to the legislature
early this year. It was carefully drawn to conform to the U.S. Supreme
Court guidelines.
It is still bottled up in committee. We do not really expect the
opponents of capital punishment to see the light. If they are ever to be
moved on this measure, it will have to be because they feel the heat of
public opinion.
Whenever one speaks of capital punishment, there is a dangerof being
cast as a zealot, waving the bloody shirt. And I am fully aware that many
citizens honestly oppose capital punishment on moral grounds or because
of their own compassionate views. I respect their opinions. They are
entitled to express them and to seek to convince others of the validity
of their belief.
But a majority of our citizens strongly believe that capital
punishment is a deterrent to crime. And I cannot help but draw some
degree of significance from the fact that during the time we have had an
almost total moritorium on capital punishment, the rate of violent crime
has escalated steadily.
- 5 -
Citizens Committee
In fact, it might be said that this issue, more than any other, is
a signal to the criminal element of just how determined society is to
protect itself.
When a law breaker can kill without facing the prospect of the
ultimate penalty, when most convicted criminals know that they probably
will not wind up in prison, we cannot say we have effective deterrents
to even more criminal activity.
The committee recommended that the state adopt and enforce a clear
state policy that criminals who use firearms in committing a crime
should go to jail.
The committee recommended state assistance to help local law
enforcement officials improve and finance mutual aid programs to control
riots or other mass disturbances or disasters. We have a bill in the
legislature to accomplish this.
The legislature has also been asked to tighten up our juvenile crime
laws, particularly since the age of adulthood has now been reduced to 18.
With their many other recommendations, the committee proposed that
the state abolish the so-called "exclusionary rule" and instead adopt a
substitute that would allow the victims of illegal search and seizures to
recover damages, but would not result in suppressing evidence that might
otherwise convict a guilty offender. More than any other single court
decision, the "exclusionary rule" has had the most devastating impact on
effective law enforcement.
I know many of you are familiar with it and how it has frustrated
the goal of justice. For those who are not, the exclusionary rule is a
constitutional interpretation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution and Article 1, Section 19 of the state Constitution. It
provides that if a law enforcement officer obtains evidence of a crime by
what a court later decides was an unreasonable search or seizure, that
evidence cannot be admitted in court and cannot be considered in trying
to determine a defendant's guilt.
It was not proposed specifically by any language placed within the
state or U.S. Constitutions. Nor was it adopted by Congress or a
legislature. It was created by judicial decision.
It was first adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court for federal courts in
1914 and in 1955 the Supreme Court of California extended it to include
California courts. The U.S. Supreme Court applied the "exclusionary rule"
to all the states in 1961.
- 6 -
Citizens Committee
From the time of its enactment, it has been a subject of controversy
and dispute by some of America's greatest legal minds.
It also has been applied in cases that border on the ridiculous
interpretations of law that would be humorous if they did not involve
serious crime, or did not complicate the very serious business of fighting
crime in California and throughout the country.
One newspaper columnist described the "exclusionary rule" as meaning
the murder weapon cannot be introduced into evidence unless the search
warrant the police used to recover it was wrapped up in a neat red ribbon
That may sound exaggerated. But not when you examine some of the
specific cases that involve the "exclusionary rule."
There was the so-called "trash barrel" decision, which in effect
held that the Constitutional shield against unreasonable search and
seizure extends to the trash barrel in the street.
In this case, the police had received a tip that some persons were
engaged in illegal narcotics activities. The officers located the
residence and when they arrived, they saw several trash barrels awaiting
pickup. They asked the garbage collectors to pick up the cans in front
of the suspected house and empty them. The officers found 5 paper sacks
containing marijuana debris and seeds and six partially burned marijuana
cigarettes. Later, they found additional marijuana inside the house.
But this evidence was suppressed on the grounds that it
represented an unlawful search and seizure. That ruling was confirmed
by the state Supreme Court and just recently it was upheld by the U.S.
Supreme Court.
In case after case, police find evidence excluded from court because
of this rule, even though there is a dispute among legal scholars whether
it is valid, and even when judges themselves cannot decide what
constitutes reasonable search and seizure.
Almost 50 years ago, the chief justice of the New York Court of
Appeal (Justice Cardozo) strongly disagreed with the principle involved
in the "exclusionary rule."
The impact, he said, means that "the criminal is to go free because
the constable has blundered, a room is searched against the law, and the
body of a murdered man is found, the privacy of the home has been
infringed, and the murdered goes free."
In a more recent opinion, Chief Justice Burger of the U.S. Supreme
Court strongly dissented in an "exclusionary rule case." He said:
- 7 -
Citizens Committee
"Suppressing unchallenged truth has set guilty criminals free, but
demonstratable has neither deterred deliberate violations of the Fourth
Amendment nor decreased those errors in judgment which will inevitably
occur given the pressures inherent in police work having to do with
serious crimes."
In another case, he said he could not find the slightest
Constitutional basis to reverse a conviction. "The court reaches out,
strains and distorts rules which were showing some signs of stabilizing,
and directs a new trial which will be held more than seven years after
the criminal acts charged."
The interpretation which results in these misapplications of the
"exclusionary rule" is unique to American justice. Although the British
and Canadian systems of justice have the same common heritage in law,
neither allows valid evidence to be suppressed in a way that permits
guilty criminals to go free.
The Select Committee found the "exclusionary rule to be one of the
greatest inhibiting factors in achieving more effective law enforcement.
And they recommend that California adopt a substitute that would better
serve the cause of justice.
Many legal scholars have made the same suggestion. Chief Justice
Burger, who advocates adopting a substitutue, says "the experience of over
half a century has shown (that the 'exclusionary rule') neither deters
errant officers nor affords a remedy to the totally innocent victims
of official misconduct."
Our committee proposed that the public entity employing the policemen
be made liable for ordinary damages plus attorney's fees for any unlawful
searches and seizures by law enforcement officers. In this way, the law
would provide an effective means of redress for the victims of unlawful
searches. But it would not be at the cost of suppressing evidence
necessary to bring the guilty to justice.
In the finaly analysis, the primary purpose of the trial, the whole
reason for a court and a legal system, is to determine the truth.
When valid evidence is suppressed, the truth is mocked. And
injustice is the result.
We must find ways of re-establishing the court as a citadel of truth.
So we have asked the legislature to adopt a substitute for the
"exclusionary rule," a step advocated by many legal scholars as the most
effective remedy for this bottleneck to justice.
- 8 -
Citizens Committee
The recommendations of the Select Committee and other reforms in
our prison system and our parole and probation policy are part of our
effort to assure that the criminal justice system regains an ability to
function effectively for the protection of the people.
At the same time, we are seeking reforms that assure a compassionate
approach to first time offenders, to the casual lawbreaker who can be
rehabilitated. But we also must recognize that rehabilitation is not
something that can be accomplished easily. It requires most of all,
the cooperation of the offenders themselves. If the individual offender
lacks a desire to become again a useful and productive citizen of society
it is unlikely that any prison rehabilitation program can succeed,
however well intended it may be.
Finally, we must recognize that preserving and protecting a lawful
society is a responsibility of every citizen. The law cannot assure
justice unless a majority of our people are willing to accept the rule
of law, not because a police car is patrolling nearby, but because it
is morally right.
With freedom goes responsibility. Sir Winston Churchill once said
you can have 10,000 regulations and still not have respect for law. We
might start with the 10 Commandments. If we lived by the Golden Rule,
there would be no need for other laws.
But men have not reached that degree of enlightened moral
responsibility. We know there is a criminal element that will challenge
our legal system. And we know that our system of criminal justice must
always be prepared to vigorously act to protect society. There can be
no compromise with chronic, deliberate lawlessness,
Almost 150 years ago, the French traveler Alexis de Tocqueville
said: "Justice is the end of government, it has ever been and ever will
be pursued, until it either will be obtained or until liberty be lost in
the pursuit."
It is our job to pursue justice for everyone until it is obtained
and secured. To do this, we know we will need the help of groups such as
yours, people who are concerned enough about crime to do something
about it.
######
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,
or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by
the above quotes).
- 9 -
the
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
RELEASE: TUESDAY A.Ms.
Sacramento, California 95814
AUGUST 7, 1973
Ed Gray, Press Secretary
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
916-445-4571
8-6-73
RELEASE
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
COMSTOCK CLUB, WOODLAKE INN, SACRAMENTO
August 6, 1973
Since your club was founded, I know you have heard from some of the
nation's most distinguished leaders, in a wide variety of fields. I am
greatly honored to be your 200th speaker even though some might interpret
this to mean you have reached the bottom of the barrel.
The name you selected for your club Comstock evokes an image of
Sacramento's long and rich history: the western terminus of the Pony
Express and the collecting point for the gold flowing out of the Mother
Lode Country.
That has not changed too much. It is still a collecting point and
the home of big spenders--of someone else's money.
Nancy and I mulepacked into the High Sierras a few weeks ago. We
thought it might be nice to really get away from it all. The rocky trail
and all those mules---it really was not that much of a change.
Seriously, it is a pleasure to meet with you who represent a cross
section of this city's leadership. Sacramento is the capitol of the
nation's largest state and you who live and work here are uniquely
important.
What happens here has an impact onthe rest of the nation and
sometimes on the rest of the world. We have become a mirror of the
future and whether we like it or not, we all have a part in shaping the
future.
California has led the nation in sophisticated technology, in finding
new ways to build better products, to create a more prosperous economy,
and to provide greater opportunities for more and more people to share
in that prosperity.
Much of the technology that makes America the world leader in
computers was developed in California. For many years, we have been
America's number one agricultural state and we pioneered most of the
advanced farming methods. The Eastern cynicism that California is a
good place to be if you are an orange is no longer heard. Others now
look on California with both envy and awe.
It is true, however, that with material achievement have come
problems. We were the first to discover and name smog. We were also
the first to launch an effort to eliminate it.
- 1 -
Comstock Club
We have become first in population and again found an accompanying
increase in problems. Problems affecting the environment and massive
new demands for such things as parks and recreational areas. These
problems are being solved more effectively than many of our people
realize.
We are living in a momentous era of economic change. California's
great agricultural production is a tremendous economic asset. For too
many decades, government policies born of the great depression continued
to 100k upon the ability of our farmers to produce as a problem. Today,
in an increasingly hungry world, we know it is an opportunity.
Last year, agricultural production brought in more than $5 billion
in California. And when the impact of this production ripples through
the state's economy, in canning, processing, shipping and all the other
ways in which a farm or ranch produced dollar multiplies, it means that
agriculture accounted for about $25 billion of the total California
economy in 1972.
The same is true of many other California based industries, producin
all manner of raw materials and industrial goods.
Prosperity is something created by people and their industries and
business for which government takes credit. There are always those who
insist government must keep pace with our free society by increasing in
size, in cost and ultimately and inevitably in power. It will not come
as a shock to you, I am sure, to hear that even though I am a part of
government, I disagree.
Government must keep pace with the changing needs of our state and
its people to be sure that government can fulfill its legitimate
obligations.
But if our people are to enjoy the real income gains they have
earned, government must not create inflation or siphon their increased
earnings into government coffers.
Government has an inborn tendency to grow. And, left to itself, it
will grow beyond the control of the people. Only constant complaint by
the people will inhibit this growth.
And that means citizen participation in government to a greater
extent than we have had in recent decades. This means more than just
voting or writing letters to representatives. This means men and women
of stature and achievement being willing to "do time" in government,
taking leave from their careers and business to hold elective and
appointed positions in government.
Comstock Club
Most of you have heard me tell how in our first few months in
Sacramento, we organized the businessman's task force on efficiency and
economy. Indeed, some of you participated and your recommendations and
managerial skill helped restore this state to fiscal solvency.
We turned again to the citizenry when it became evident that
government alone could not or would not deal with the problem of runaway
welfare that actually posed the threat of bankruptcy.
A little more than two years ago, we were adding 40,000 people a
month to the welfare rolls and the cost was going up three times as fast
as state revenues. We were spread so thin, we were not able to properly
provide for the truly needy, those who through no fault of their own had
to depend on us.
Our task force drafted a program of reform and redirection that
became the most comprehensive overhaul of welfare ever undertaken
anywhere. We began implementation not without great opposition
two
years ago last March.
There are today 352,000 fewer people on welfare. We have increased
the benefits for the needy by 30 percent, provided cost of living
adjustments for the blind and the disabled, and developed a work program
for able-bodied welfare recipients, to eliminate the demeaning dead end
that welfare had come to mean for those who could become productive and
participating citizens in our economy and our society. And we have an
$826 million surplus in the treasury.
Some of those responsible for the reforms have been asked by the
federal government to institute similar reforms in the other 49 states.
Last year, we launched another task force effort to study the maze
of government that has come into being below the state level in California
thousands of special districts, hundreds of cities and 58 counties, all
with taxing power.
It is time to take an inventory, to survey the whole structure to
see if it can be streamlined and made more efficient and less costly.
During the past decade or so, the crime rate has grown beyond any
possible reconciliation with population growth or other factors that might
cause increase. The truth is, some of the changes that have taken place
in our society have been for the worse, not for the better. Too many
people have tried to excuse lawlessness on sociological or economic
grounds, ignoring the fact that our system of justice is based on the
concept that the individual is accountable for his or her actions.
Judicial rulings that handicap the prosecutors and the police, crowded
court calendars, well intended but ineffective concepts of probation and
parole, all those things have contributed to the problems involving public
safety.
Comstock Club
Again we turned to the people and put a task force to work. Last
week, they issued their report covering the whole spectrum of law
enforcement and the criminal justice system, everything from instituting
uniform crime reports, to mandatory prison sentences for narcotics
pushers and those who use a firearm in committing a crime. The goal is
to do whatever is needed to give law enforcement and the criminal justice
system the tools it takes to attack and reduce crime in every city and
neighborhood in California.
I am sure I will get no argument if I say the cost of living is too
high. I am getting an argument, however, for saying taxes are too high,
that the best thing government can do to fight inflation is to let the
people keep more of their own money.
Reducing the percentage that government takes out of the private
sector is the best service government can perform for the people.
I hope you have noticed that in each of these accomplishments of
government, they were achieved by turning to the people. Once again, we
have turned to the private sector, to experts outside the formal
structure of government, to find an effective way to reduce taxes and
still meet the essential needs of the people. Again, a task force was
created.
We consulted some of the finest economists in the country and they
and the task force worked for many months. The result is the Tax Limit
and Tax Reduction plan that Californians will vote on November 6.
They confirmed what most people have suspected. The total tax load
has tripled in the past two generations in America. In 1930, the federal
budget was only a fraction of the gross national product. Today it is
25 percent. In 1930, all government revenues federal, state, and
local amounted to only 15 percent of the national income. Today, total
government revenues federal, state, and local amount to 44.7 percent
of every income dollar.
And unless we do something to reverse that trend, it will be more
than 54 cents in 15 short years. Government is the biggest single cost
item in the family budget. Right now, it costs the average citizen more
than he spends for food, clothing and housing for his entire family.
State government takes 8.75 cents of that 44.7 cents tax burden. We
propose reducing that 8.75 cents by 1/10 of 1 percent each year for 15
years until the state will be taking approximately 7 cents out of each
dollar you earn. That will then become the limit as to the percentage
the state can take except by a vote of the people.
Comstock Club
Because of that one time surplus of $826 million, we are also
proposing an across-the-board rebate next April of 20 percent of this
year's income tax, 100 percent forgiveness for families with incomesoof
$8,000 or less and individuals with $4,000 or less. And because we can
see an ongoing surplus if we continue to be careful, we want to reduce
income taxes on an ongoing basis: 7½ percent and continue the 100 percent
cancellation for those lower income brackets.
We want to establish a permanent limit on taxes, not in dollars but
in percentage, so that government's revenue can continue to grow to meet
necessary needs. But also so that your own incomes can grow faster than
the deductions taken out of those pay checks for taxes.
With this tax limit in effect, the state would continue to get the
money it needs to meet the costs of inflation and growth plus tens of
millions of dollars for new spending. The budget could double from $9
to $18 billion in 10 years and triple to $27 billion in 15.
If the state continues the present rate of increase in revenues with
no limit, it will be getting $47 billion a year 15 years from now, and
if it is getting it, that is what the budget will be: $47 billion,
more than five times the present level.
As the University of Chicago Economist Milton Friedman says,
"Government always lives up to its income, and then some."
What is so horrendous about government putting a limit on the
percentage it can take from the private sector? Why can't we have the
expertise to determine the point at which government becomes a drag on
the economy, so long as provision is made for emergencies? And we have
made such provision in our proposal.
You have to live within a budget. If you operate a business you
have to live within a budget. We already have a Constitutional require-
ment that the state must have a balanced budget.
But should government have an open end right to balance its budget
by unbalancing yours?
When an individual or a business has a lean year, they have to prune
expenses and work for better days.
When government has a deficit, it
expects to solve that deficit by handing you a higher tax bill.
Certainly, government must have income to operate. It must have
flexibility. But we do not think it should have unlimited authority to
raise your taxes unless at some point the people agree that the increase
is necessary.
- 5 -
Comstock Club
As I said before, all of these reforms, the ones we have made and
the things we hope to achieve, have involved citizen participation in
government. Contrary to what some may suggest, the wisdom of the ages
is not neatly housed in government buildings.
We called on the private sector, outside experts and we asked for
the help of the people to both draft these reforms, generate the support
necessary to put them into effect and to make them work.
We will need the support of the people to reduce taxes, to
streamline local government, to crack down on crime and make the criminal
justice system more effective and better equipped to protect the people.
That is the way our system of government is supposed to work. Lincoln
said this is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the
people.'
The problems we face are problems that affect all our people. And
all our people have both the right and the obligation to help solve them.
Unless people control government, the government will control them.
Long ago, when man was first beginning to develop technology,
Archimedes discovered that you can move any weight if you exert enough
pressure, with the right amount of leverage.
And another philosopher, Plutarch, observed that "perserverance is
more prevailing than violence
(that) many things which cannot be
overcome when they are together
yield themselves when taken little
by little."
That is what we want to do. We want to take on our problems,
particularly the ones involving government, and little by little,
overcome them, and make it possible for California to move confidently
ahead, as we have done so dramatically in the past.
It can be done, if the people rise up and exert a little pressure
in the right place.
And if anyone is wondering where the first big pressure point is,
it is in the voting booth on November 6.
#######
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,
or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by
the above quotes).
- 6 -