Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564450",
    "label": "Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1973 [04/30/1973-08/31/1973]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564450"
}

{
    "id": "118564450",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564450",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1973 [04/30/1973-08/31/1973]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564450",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Governor Ronald Reagan's Speeches"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P19-002-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P19-002-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P19-002-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564450",
    "naId": 118564450,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P19-002-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "18ca871834eee164",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1973\n[04/30/1973-08/31/1973]\nBox: P19\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nand\nX\nTVD\n4/30\n30\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nMONDAY P.Ms.\nSacramento, California 95814\nApril 30, 1973\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n4-27-73\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT CALIFORNIA\nCOLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES\nLos Angeles\nApril 30, 1973\nFirst, I want to commend your 50 member institutions for the vital\nand necessary contribution you are making to higher education in\nCalifornia.\nThe schools you represent, indeed all of the private colleges and\nuniversities across America, occupy a unique place of importance in highe\neducation. They provide a continuation of a long and proud history of\nacademic excellence. They offer educational leadership far out of\nproportion to the numbers of private institutions in this country or\nthe percentage of students they enroll.\nYou serve as a balance wheel to our great network of public\ninstitutions of higher learning. You preserve a precious ingredient\nnecessary to the success of our entire educational system, an alternative;\ncompetition in our constant striving for excellence.\nThe very existence of the independent college and university helps\nto assure and safeguard academic freedom for both students and faculty.\nThis competition, the fact that you are still in business, gives the\neducational consumer (the student) a greater variety of choice, not only\nto meet his academic goals, but also to nurture and provide for the\nspiritual experience that is part of any complete educational program.\nI have always felt that within the proper Constitutional restraints\nin our system of government, America can make no better investment than\nto assure the survival and the unique values of the independent college\nand university.\nAs you well know, the price of higher education has been going up\nfor both public and private institutions. And this is occurring at a time\nwhen there are many other demands on the public's financial resources,\nand a corresponding need on the part of the taxpaying citizen for some\nrelief from the staggering fiscal burdens that are placed on our people.\nThe inflation and higher costs that cause you to raise tuition rates\nalso affect the citizens, the businesses and the individuals who provide\nthe great bulk of your financial support.\n- 1 -\nIndependent Colleges\nIn Sacramento, we are well aware of the problem. In these past\nsix years we have been striving to do what we can within a constitutional\nframework to alleviate the plight of the youngster who wants to attend\na private college or university.\nIn 1967, the budget for the state Scholarship and Loan Commission\nwas less than $5 million.\nThis year (1973-74), our scholarship and loan budget is more than\n$38 million. Almost half (46 percent) of the students receiving state\nscholarship assistance are enrolled in private colleges or universities.\nThree-fourths of the funds (76 percent) devoted to state scholarships go\nto students attending private institutions, to help them meet their\ncollege expenses.\nThe fact that you are able to attract this proportion of our\nscholarship students is a tribute to the reputation you have established\nin the academic world. Each of the students who chooses a private college\ndoes so because he believes he will find there the precise type of\ndisciplined educational experience he seeks.\nI used the word disciplined advisedly because I am convinced that\nat least part of the increased cost of higher education is because a few\nin the academic community sometimes forget what education is and what it\nis supposed to be.\nA century ago, his eminence Cardinal John Henry Newman observed that\neducation is not recreation or amusement. It is hard, demanding mental\ndiscipline applied to a serious purpose.\n\"Do not say the people must be educated when, after all, you mean\namused, refreshed, soothed, put into good spirits and good humor or kept\nfrom vicious excesses.\"\nIf the good Cardinal could have been around for the campus ferment\nof the 1960s. he would have found that his words still have great validity\nDuring that period of turmoil and unrest, there were those on campus\nwho seemed to believe that it was a proper role of the university or\ncollege to amuse rather than to educate. And there were a lot of people\noff campus who did not find that amusing.\nBut the eminent Cardinal's definition of what education is not was\nnot completely reversed. Being on campus then certainly did not protect\nall students from \"vicious excesses.\"\nAnd this too, the advocacy of the drug culture and violence, was and\nis a matter of concern to most of our citizens- the very people to whom\nthe university or college, public and private, must turn for financial\nsupport.\n- 2 -\nThe phenomenon of the student upheavals, whatever the cause,\nbaffled and upset the American public because our people have and\ncherish a tradition of civility. And they expect civil conduct at\ninstitutions of higher learning, by students and faculty alike.\nThose who have wondered about the campus disruptions might find at\nleast a partial answer to student unrest in the polls of student opinion\ntaken throughout this period. From beginning to end---and unfortunately,\nit is still true today---the grievances cited most frequently by students\ninvolved what they perceived to be faculty neglect of the student and\nhis needs.\nIt was not Vietnam. It was not student power. The grievance\nmentioned most frequently was the student's inability to find the\nprofessor, the too common use of graduate teaching assistants in the\nclassroom rather than the professors and faculty the students expected\nto find there.\nIf the professor whose name they read in the catalogue is seldom\nin the classroom or in contact with them, the students obviously do not\nbelieve they can get the education they seek. And too often, the\nprofessor was not in the classroom often enough to make them believe\notherwise. Research and other activities took too much of their time.\nHowever successful we are in balancing teaching and research in\npublic institutions, this is a situation that offers the independent\ncollege a great opportunity---not only to further the cause of academic\nexcellence, but to survive as an alternative choice for those seeking\nhigher education.\nBy being better, by providing the type of intimate student-faculty\ncontact that you are known for now; by filling the educational need that\nmany students rank highest, the independent college or university will\nnot lack for students. There is and I believe there always will be a\nneed and a demand for the type of educational experience your\ninstitutions offer.\nNow, it seems, a great part of the campus unrest has ebbed. But the\nstates and national government are taking a closer look at higher\neducation, its role, its efficiency in carrying out its purpose and its\ncosts. This searching reappraisal is not only a result of fiscal\nnecessity, it also is a deeply-felt desire for a reaffirmation of the\ntraditional values inherent in higher education.\n- 3 -\nIndependent Colleges\nOur people want higher education to fulfill the noble role it has\nalways played in our culture. But they do not want to be taxed more to\nfinance frivolous amusements and/or the non-academic activities of a few\nwho claim the status of an academic elite.\nIt was interesting to note in the presentation outlining the fiscal\nproblems you face that you mentioned the tuition gap between private\ninstitutions and public institutions.\nIt is wider in California than in any other state. We know about\nthe tuition gap.\nBut we have been trying to do something about it.\nOne of our first goals in higher education when we went to\nSacramento was to strike some sort of reasonable balance in this matter\nof tuition. The Regents of the University of California have established\na tuition now.\nWe believed then and we believe now that tuition is essential for\na number of reasons, but not to present any kind of barrier to higher\neducation. Our scholarships and other programs are specifically aimed\nat eliminating financial barriers. Instead, we believe that the students\nwho benefit most from higher education have some obligation to help pay\nfor it. The whole load cannot be left to the taxpayers.\nScholarships, deferred repayment plans, all these types of avenues\nmust be explored to assure that no student is denied an opportunity of\ngoing to college.\nAs you know, we have recommended that a reasonable tuition be\nextended to the state University and College system, too. We could use\nyour\nhelp in this in correcting the imbalance in the present\ntuition structure.\nAgain, I want to emphasize that our goal is greater opportunity for\nmore students, not less. Yet those who benefit most from higher\neducation do have an obligation to help finance the cost of their\nadvanced education. Millions of taxpaying citizens did not have that\nopportunity yet they contribute their taxes to make it possible for others\nIn the past year, a state income tax credit was authorized for\nparents of youngsters attending private schools in the lower and\nsecondary grades (K-12). This is not a deduction, it is a dollar for\ndollar tax credit that will help ease the financial burden of California\nfamilies who are taxed to support a public school system and who also\npay tuition to send their children to private institutions.\n- 4 -\nIndependent Colleges\nThis same concept is one that I believe must ultimately be\nextended to higher education. I realize, and I know you do too, that a\nstate tax credit is not the sole answer simply because our share of the\ntax dollar is not that significant, The real need is for federal income\ntax credits and I support that, too. I have for years.\nSome of you have noted a decline in your enrollment growth,\nespecially students from families in the middle income brackets. This\nis a familiar pattern that is evident in too many areas. The most\naffluent of our citizens can finance their own needs, whether it be\neducation or health care. And our society has accepted the obligation\nto provide for the least affluent, the disadvantaged.\nIn between is the vast majority of working, taxpaying middle-income\ncitizens. And these are the same families that provide the great\nmajority of your enrollment and the enrollment in most colleges and\nuniversities.\nThey are the people who feel the pinch of rising tuition costs,\nsimply because it costs more now for a higher education in a private\nschool. But they also are the same people constantly struggling to pay\nthe increasing share of their earnings that government consumes in taxes.\nThere is no mystery about why you may be seeing fewer middle income\nstudents in private schools. Some of these families simply do not have\nenough of their own earnings left after taxes to send them to your\ninstitutions.\nRight now, the average family in California pays more to finance\ngovernment at all levels than they do for their food, their housing and\ntheir clothing combined.\nThe typical citizen works almost six months of the year to pay his\nper capita share of the total tax burden. One of the best ways you could\nease their financial plight, and yours, too, would be to support every\nreasonable effort to reduce the total tax burden.\nThat is what our Revenue Control and Tax Limit program is trying to\ndo. Now, do not bolt for the doors yet. I am going to let you off\nlightly. I am not giving you my complete briefing on this subject. I\ncan't. I left my charts at home.\nAnd I know most of you are probably familiar with its points anyway.\nBut I would like to point out your interest in reducing the tax burden.\nAnd I would like to ask for your support, both as individuals and as a\ngroup of vitally needed institutions which rely on the private sector\nfor the greatest part of your financial support.\n- 5 -\nIndependent Colleges\nWe utilized the talents of some of the nation's finest economists\nin drafting this plan. Our task force discovered that the private\nsector which provides most of your support is shouldering a staggering\nfinancial burden, one that has become intolerable.\nIn 1930, government at all levels took only about 15 percent of this\ncountry's total personal income. By 1950, this had grown to 32 percent.\nToday, it is more than 44 percent. Almost half of every income dollar in\nour state goes to finance government.\nThe state's share of that is roughly 8-3/4 cents. That percentage\nwould be reduced to around 7 percent over a period of 15 years, in steps\nof one tenth of one percent each year.\nI know it does not sound like much. But in 15 years, if you compoun\nthat yearly savings in taxes, it amounts to more than $118 billion!\nThat is how much more money would be left with the private sector,\nthat is how much more money the people would have left of their own\nearnings to spend for their needs, to pay, among other things, the higher\ntuition costs that you must charge in private institutions of higher\nlearning.\nThe average family's per capita share of the total tax burden would\nbe reduced by more than $17,000 if we enact this plan, over a period of\nthe next 15 years. That is a pretty fair start toward paying for a colleg\neducation, even with today's tuition.\nOur plan gives the people the right to raise the tax limit any time\nthey feel new programs justify it, yet our plan also contains flexibility\nto allow an expansion of the budget, to cover inflation and population\ngrowth, to finance essential new programs. There is a reserve fund,\nfor emergencies and additional safety valve features if that is not\nenough.\nBut here, when you talk about emergencies, you get into the problem\nof definitions. Every new program that anyone in government wants\nqualifies as an emergency. And if it takes a declaration of emergency to\nget it, you can be sure there will be a lot of emergencies.\nTo give you some perspective of the present tax load, I would like\nto recall the days back in World War II. I think you will agree that\nwas an emergency of a pretty high magnitude. Yet during the peak of the\nwar, the total cost of government never reached a third of our national\nresources, it was around 28 percent to be exact.\n- 6 -\nIndependent Colleges\nToday, it is 44 percent. And unless we do something, it will be\n55 percent in 15 years. The state budget alone will grow from $9 to\n$47 billion.\nWhat we propose to do is simply slow down the growth of government\nspending at the state level, allow the take-home pay of our people to\ngrow faster than their tax deductions. That is important to the economy\nof California, to the prosperity of our people and it is important to you\nand the institutions you represent. Tuition costs come out of take-home\npay. You do not have a stake in higher taxes. On the contrary, it is in\nyour interest that taxes be reduced so more people can afford to send\ntheir children to private institutions if they wish.\nBut this is not just a matter of money. There is a far greater\nprinciple involved, that of freedom. If government is taking more than\nhalf of every income dollar, how long can freedom survive? How long can\nfree institutions like yours retain their independence, without being\nforced to either shut down or become publicly-financed institutions,\ncontrolled by government.\nThe importance of maintaining an independent system of higher\neducation is underscored by a debate that has been going on in Britain.\nIn that country, as many of you may know, higher education receives more\nthan 90 percent of its support from state sources,\nA few years ago, a distinguished group of British scholars started\na movement, not for more government aid, but for a new university that\nwould be totally free of dependence on state funds.\nIt would be supported by something quite familiar to you---by\nprivate contributions, by tuition, But the tuition would not be a\nfinancial obstacle because there also would be a system of loans which\nwould be repaid after the student graduated, over a long period of time.\nAdmission standards would be strict, The sponsors also wanted to\nmake a special effort to attract students strongly motivated toward\nlearning students who wanted intellectual challenge, and who did not\nmind working hard to measure up to rigid standards,\nWell, you can imagine what happened. The proposal was vigorously\nattacked by some of Britain's academic establishment the public\nuniversity administrators and faculty. These opponents said a new\ninstitution might divert private funds away from existing public\ninstitutions. They did not say they feared competition, they just\nwanted to stifle it.\n- 7 -\nIndependent Colleges\nThe sponsors of the drive for a new university in England felt\nstrongly enough about the principle involved to battle the entire public\nacademic establishment in that country.\nThey believe independent scholarship is essential to preserve the\nbest traditions of the British University.\nThey know that the kind of encroachment and control they fear can\nnever occur so long as there is another system. Control and conformity\ncannot co-exist or be enforced with competition.\nThose of you who administer and help sponsor the private colleges\nin this country provide that kind of competition. And by doing so you\nare helping preserve the best traditions of American education.\nBelieve me, there is no greater service that you could possibly\nperform. Freedom can never be lost when there is a free choice, an\nalternative.\n#######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes).\n8 I I\n5/16\n91\nvr OVRNOR\nWEDNESDAY\nP.MS.\nSacramento, California 95814\nMay 16, 1973\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n5-15-73\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nLEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES\nMAYORS' AND COUNCILMEN'S LEGISLATIVE INSTITUTE\nSacramento, California\nMay 16, 1973\nA few months ago we announced plans for a Task Force on Local\nGovernment to take a comprehensive look at the entire structure of\ngovernment in California and recommend ways to improve it.\nToday, I would like to give you just a brief review of our efforts\nso far and to emphasize again---as we did at the start that we do not\nregard this as something that will present only the view from Sacramento.\nWe want and we need your participation and your recommendations. We want\nto open this up to all levels of local government so that we can get a\ncomprehensive grasp of your problems from the perspective of the largest\ncounty down to the smallest special district.\nAs you know, the initial planning for the project was headed by\nLieutenant Governor Ed Reinecke. He and members of our Cabinet are\ncontinuing to operate as a steering committee to provide overall policy\nguidance and to help in charting the goals of the program.\nThe project itself is headed by Robert Hawkins and a few weeks ago\nwe appointed the Task Force which will provide the necessary staff work\nand consulting services.\nOne member of our task force is probably well known to you:\nJohn Phillips, recently retired city manager of Pasadena, a former\npresident of the city managers' department of the League of Cities and a\nman with more than 30 years experience in city government in California.\nAnother member is Earl J. Stratham, the former county administrator\nin Alameda County. Mr. Stratham is a past president of the County\nPersonnel Administrator's Association of California, a former director of\nthe Western Governmental Research Association and a former vice president\nof the American Society for Public Administration.\nBoth these gentlemen bring to their assignments broad backgrounds\nin city and county government. The other staff people have their own\nspecial talents and expertise.\nIn addition to the steering committee and the task force, the overall\nprogram will include the participation of advisory committees made up of\nlocal government officials, public administrators, representatives of the\nacademic community and private citizens. The Council on Intergovernmental\nRelations is a key part of the effort and has been conducting a series of\nhearings around the state.\n- 1 -\nLeague of Cities\nOur task force and other staff people have been maintaining a close\nliaison with Don Benninghoven, your executive director; with officials\nand staff members from the County Supervisors Association of California\nand with representatives of the various special districts.\nUp to now, this has been largely on an information basis, to keep\nyou informed of the program and its direction and to provide an initial\npoint of contact for relaying your concerns and recommendations.\nIn August, I am told, a more extensive public hearing will be held\nso that representatives from your organization and individual cities may\npresent their ideas, recommendations and perhaps outline in more depth\nthe problems you see in reorganizing local government.\nWe know there will be no shortage of problems. But we hope and\nexpect, with your cooperation, that we will be able to develop some\nanswers, too.\nYour own reorganization studies, the Action Plan for the future of\nCalifornia Cities and the County Supervisors' research into the same\nsubject, can provide valuable insight and first hand knowledge in this\neffort to streamline the local governmental structure of California.\nRight now, the task force is analyzing all available sources of\ninformation and beginning to develop a detailed program to cover all the\nvarious phases of the project.\nThe five major subject areas include:\n--an analysis of the present structure of local government;\n--a review of public service responsibilities to determine which\nlevel of government is best equipped to provide the various services\nrequired by the people;\n--a look at the financial resources available or potentially\navailable to help carry out these public service responsibilities;\n--a comprehensive review of current geographic boundaries of counties\n--and last, but certainly not least, we want to examine the\nrelationship of the state and all of those local governmental units with\nwhich we must deal in carrying out our differing responsibilities.\nAs I told the county supervisors, we are entering into this with no\npreconceived ideas. No suggestion, however innovative it may be, will\nbe ignored.\nIn my charge to the task force I posed one question: \"ask your-\nselves: if you were starting all over again, how would you structure\nlocal government to make it the most efficient, most responsive and least\ncostly instrument of the people at the local level.'\n- 2 -\nLeague of Cities\nIn years past, especially in the days of rapid growth following\nWorld War II, the number of governmental units in California proliferated\nalong with the population. And today, California has about 5,800 separate\nunits of government below the state level. It includes your 407\nincorporated cities, 58 counties, more than 1100 school districts and\nroughly 4,200 special districts.\nEach of these districts was organized to provide a specific service\nand we have no quarrel with that. But the sheer numbers involved now\nhave made this almost an invisible layer of government. There are an\nestimated 585 taxing jurisdictions in Los Angeles County alone, including\n77 cities, 107 school districts and 349 special districts, not counting\nwater districts.\nThe average citizen has little idea of all these districts unless he\nscans the breakdown on his property tax bill. At that time, I am sure\nthe people must wonder if all these different units of government are\nnecessary, if essential services might not be provided more efficiently\nand at less cost with fewer districts.\nA citizens' committee in Los Angeles thinks SO. In a report last\nyear, one of these committees said consolidation could not only save\nmoney, but could mean better service in the specific area of fire\nprotection.\nEach separate special district requires a separate layer of\nadministration and as you all know, this kind of duplication costs money.\nIn considering county boundary lines, we want to frankly look at\nwhat we have now and see whether something else might be better.\nIs there an ideal geographic or population size for the various\nsegments of local government? If so, what is it? At what point does\nsize become a barrier to efficiency and what is it?\nLos Angeles County has the same number of supervisors as Alpine\nCounty, but there is a difference of seven million people in their\nrespective populations.\nWe want to analyze the financial problems and assets of local\ngovernment, to see what is available now, what savings might be realized\nthrough reforms.\nThese are the kinds of things the task force will be looking at.\nWe want your suggestions and your ideas on what would be the best system\nof local government for California, not only in the decade ahead, but\nin the next century.\n- 3 -\nLeague of Cities\nYet in accomplishing this, we do not want change just for the sake\nof change. We want to preserve home rule, to keep intact the best of\nthe present structure of government and concentrate on eliminating the\ninefficient or inappropriate parts.\nWe know there must always be a level of government to provide the\nessential services the people need. Yet if we can provide those\nservices at less cost, we must do it.\nThat's where we are on the task force. I just want to say that out\nof their work, with the cooperation of all the different levels of\ngovernment involved, we hope to develop an administrative structure that\nwill make California a model of governmental efficiency and economy.\nto\nWe want a system that gives every citizen an opportunity/know which\ngovernmental unit provides a service and how much it costs\na\ngovernment\nthat is responsive to changing needs and equipped to deal with those\nchanging needs.\nThe other subject I want to discuss today is our Revenue Control and\nTax Reduction proposal. I realize that most of you are familiar with the\nprogram in a general sense and probably in many of the specifics.\nThis was the result of another task force we appointed last year.\nIt consisted of key members of our cabinet and senior staff and a group\nof some of the finest economists and management consultants in America.\nWe asked them to look into the entire subject of taxation, to tell\nus where we are, to determine the real cost of government and to make\nrecommendations on how we can reduce the tax burden of the people of\nCalifornia while retaining the fiscal resources and flexibility government\nneeds to develop and finance essential services.\nThere really are two issues involved: what to do with the. state's\npresent budget surplus and how to reduce the tax burden on a permanent\nlong range basis.\nThere has been a lot of rhetoric on both subjects. Our position is\nthat the surplus, which will be somewhere between $700 and $852 million,\nshould be returned to the people who paid it. It was not needed and it\nshould be returned.\nWe have proposed what we believe is a reasonable and equitable way\nto return this one-time surplus.\nFirst, we want to defer the one cent sales tax increase scheduled to\ngo into effect at the end of this fiscal year. This increase is part of\nthe homeowner property tax relief and school finance program of last year.\nIt amounts to a shifting of part of the tax burden away from homeowners\nand renters to the broader based sales tax.\n- 4 -\ncities\nNext, because the surplus came from a variety of sources, income\nand sales tax, we want to provide every taxpayer a one-time 20 percent\ntax credit or rebate on this year's state income tax.\nAnd we want to simply eliminate the state income tax obligation for\ncouples with an adjusted gross income of $8,000 or less and single\nindividuals with $4,000 or less.\nWith what is left over, we propose to earthquake proof the Capitol\nbuilding in Sacramento and buy some more beach and park lands to serve\nthe recreational needs of the people.\nThe second and long range part of the plan is our Revenue Control\nand Tax Reduction Program.\nBriefly, we want to place an upper limit on the amount of taxes the\nstate can take out of California's total personal income.\nIn their studies, our task force found that government's total\nrevenues at all levels federal, state and local amount to about\n44 percent of total personal income.\nSome of you may be confused by some of the challenges to this figure.\nIt is true that you can, as one critic did, match the tax burden against\nthe gross state product and you will come up with a figure of 36.7 percent.\nBy not counting Social Security and other similar taxes, or by using net\ngross product, you can reduce it a little more. If you do that, you are\njust kidding yourself. Even if 33 or 37 percent were used, that is still\ntoo much. And if anyone does not think it is, just ask the typical tax-\npayer. The only true measure of the tax burden is to match what the\npeople have in total income against what government spends\nagainst what\ngovernment takes out of personal income and the private sector. That adds\nup to about 44.7 percent. And unless something is done to slow down the\ngrowth of government spending, that will reach almost 55 percent in just\n15 years.\nThe state budget would grow from $9 billion this year to about $47\nbillion by 1990.\nOf that 44 percent total cost of government, the state's percentage\nshare is roughly 8.75 percent that is how much state government is\ncosting the people out of their total personal income.\nUnder our plan, which was developed over a period of more than six\nmonths, we want to gradually reduce the total state tax burden. Right now,\nit is about 8.75 percent. We want to reduce this slowly, in steps of\n1/10 of 1 percent a year, so that it will gradually decline to around\n7 percent in 15 years.\n- 5 -\nLeague of Cities\nI know that does not sound like much. But when you compound the\nmoney that would be saved over a period of 15 years it adds up to more\nthan $118 billion.\nThat is how much money state government would not be taking out\nof the California economy. And that's how much more the people would\nhave to spend as they wish, to meet their own needs, to improve their\nstandard of living.\nAlong with this limit, we propose to include an immediate 7½ percent\nongoing reduction in state income taxes and to permanently eliminate the\nincome tax obligation of families earning $8,000 or less or $4,000 for\nindividuals.\nWe have proposed both these plans to the legislature as a\nconstitutional amendment to be voted on by the people. If the legislature\ndoes not approve it, we have an initiative campaign under way to qualify\nit for the ballot that way.\nFrom a philosophical standpoint, the issue is clear. We believe the\npeople have a right to decide how much of their own earnings they can\nafford to pay for government. And we believe they have an absolute\nright to vote on whether they want to place a lid on state spending.\nThe last time I read the Constitution, the power to make such\ndecisions is granted in the final analysis to the people.\nI know you have heard some of the objections that have been voiced\nabout our program, and you are interested in how it will affect local\ngovernment.\nWell, some groups simply reject entirely the idea of a spending\nceiling in the Constitution. City government in California has been\noperating for years with limited tax rates and it has not meant an end\nto city government, even though I know many of you have difficult\nfinancial problems.\nFurthermore, we already have a Constitutional requirement that the\ngovernor submit a balanced budget each year. And if spending gets out of\nhand, it is the governor's constitutional duty to use the blue pencil to\nmake sure we do not have deficit spending.\nThat limitation imposes only one major difficulty for state\ngovernment: it requires that the legislature or the governor exercise\nthe kind of fiscal restraint that the people expect you to demonstrate\nin managing the state's affairs. I do not regard that as a handicap.\nIt is why we have a system of checks and balances.\n- 6 -\nLeague of Cities\nPlacing a percentage limit on government spending is not a new or\na radical idea. It is the same thing that every family has to do to\navoid bankruptcy.\nEvery family in California has a built-in limit on spending. It is\ndetermined by their income and by how much they have left after taxes\nand all their other deductions.\nUnder this program, the state budget could triple over those 15\nyears, from $9 to $27 billion. State support for education, for health\ncare, for all legitimate spending could also triple.\nIt would be up to the legislature to decide how much each program\nwould receive. We have included a permanent fund for emergencies and\nthere is a built-in safeguard to permit the people if they wish\nto\nraise the limit any time they feel there is a need for it.\nYour own major sources of income would not be affected by this\nreasonable limit.\nYou would still get your share of the gasoline and sales tax\nrevenues. You do not have to worry that the state might saddle you with\nsome new mandated services. Under SB 90 and under our plan, if the state\ndid mandate new costs on local government, the state would have to pay\nfor it.\nI know this has been one of your concerns for many years. We\nbelieve it is a legitimate concern, that is why we have included these\nsafeguards.\nThe real issue in the debate about whether a spending ceiling is a\ngood thing or not really amounts to a difference of philosophy.\nWe simply do not believe the people of California can go on paying\nas much of their earnings and income in taxes as they have been paying.\nWhen government starts taking more than a third of the people's resources,\nthe impact of this massive burden acts as a barrier to prosperity.\nIn the next decade, California must find 200,000 new jobs every year\njust to provide economic opportunities for its growing work force.\nFour-fifths of all jobs are in the private sector and the private\nsector generates all of the taxes to support government at every level.\nWe cannot afford to stifle business and industrial expansion by giving\ngovernment a blank check. There is a limit to what people can or will\npay for government and we think that limit has been reached, not in total\ndollars, but as a percentage of their total income.\n- 7 -\nLeague of Cities\nUnder our plan, state revenues still could grow to three times the\npresent total. That does not mean the legislature would have to spend\nit all, but that does provide plenty of flexibility to meet changing\nneeds and priorities.\nThere is room for population growth, for the additional cost of\ninflation and for financing new programs. The spending ceiling merely\nrequires that the legislative and executive branches take a long hard\nlook at each new spending program to make sure that it is a priority need.\nFinally, there is the issue of freedom.\nUnder our system, we all are public servants. Yet, at what point\ndoes government become the dominant force in the economy? When does\ngovernment become the master, instead of the servant? When government\ntakes almost half or more than half of the people's earnings, freedom is\nclearly threatened.\nThe entire free economic structure of this state and this country,\nthe very system that generates the revenue to support all levels of\ngovernment, cannot indefinitely shoulder the tax burden it is now bearing.\nIndeed, no society has ever long survived a tax burden that takes one\nthird or more of the people's earnings.\nThose who oppose the idea of spending ceilings apparently believe\notherwise.\nThey apparently believe that the people can afford to pay more in\ntaxes. They apparently believe the people do not have the right to even\nvote on an alternative.\nWe believe we have reached the upper limits of what the people can\nafford to pay for government, without dangerously threatening the ability\nof our economic system to function efficiently.\nWhen government adds to its total revenue, the people must subtract\nfrom theirs. When government increases its percentage share of total\nincome, the people are forced to reduce their standard of living.\nYou are quite familiar with this because it works with government,\ntoo. When one level of government takes more than its fair share, the\nother levels of government are left to scratch for the funds necessary to\nmeet their responsibilities. The concept of revenue sharing and the\ncurrent attempts to limit federal spending demonstrate clearly that all\nthis is recognized by people in both parties.\n- 8 -\nLeague of Cities\nIt is not a partisan issue. High taxes affect everybody---\nDemocrats, Republicans and Independents. The only way to reduce this\nburden is to slow down the growth of government spending, to allow the\ntake-home pay of the people to grow faster than their tax deductions.\nThere's ample room in this revenue control program to provide for\nall necessary government spending and leave flexibility for new or\nchanging needs. The legislature retains full authority to reallocate\ntax resources under the limit. And there are built-in safeguards to\nassure that a limit on state spending will not become a burden on local\ngovernment.\nI know you plan to study and analyze the program in its entirety.\nAnd I urge you to do SO.\nEven some of the critics concede that there will not be the same\nneed for massive increases in tax rates in the future. School\nenrollment is declining.\nThe water project is nearing completion. The slowdown in\npopulation growth does not mean we will not have new expenses, but it\ndoes mean that they will not require the same percentage of increased\ntaxes in the future.\nWe have reached a unique point in our state's history. We have\nan opportunity to take a step that will permanently reduce the overall\ntax burden of our people.\nWe believe we must take that step, not next year or the year\nafter, but this year.\n#######\n(NOTE:\nSince Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes\nin, or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will\nstand by the above quotes).\n- 9 -\n5/18\nand\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: FRIDAY P.Ms.\nSacramento, California 95814\nMAY 18, 1973\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n5-17-73\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nDEDICATION OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE WATER PROJECT\nPERRIS DAM, RIVERSIDE\nMay 18, 1973\nThere are times when words are not always adequate to match the\ndimensions of the achievement being recognized. Today is one of those\noccasions.\nThis is truly a great moment in the history of California. We are\nformally noting the completion of the massive California State Water\nProject, and the opening of a new fresh-water recreation lake which soon\nwill have a ten mile shoreline.\nBut more than that, we are acknowledging the successful completion\nof a project that will rank for all time as a monument to the vision of\nman, a tribute to the creative talents and the tenacity of a people\nconstantly seeking to create a better life and environment.\nIt is no exaggeration to describe what has been accomplished with\nthose words.\nThe project we are dedicating today is one of the most daring,\nimaginative and difficult engineering feats ever attempted. It is the\nworld's largest and most comprehensive system of water conservation and\ndelivery. It is the only system ever to have been financed as a single\nunit. And it is the only system of its kind that included recreation as\na primary purpose from the very beginning.\nIn these past 6½¹₂ years, I have been privileged to attend a number of\nsimilar occasions marking the completion of one phase or another of the\nWater Project. At each, I have marveled anew at the immensity of the\ntask that first began taking shape two decades ago.\nThroughout its construction, from the initial planning to this very\nmoment, the state Water Project has been the product of a bipartisan\nspirit of cooperation.\nThree of my distinguished predecessors Earl Warren, Goodwin Knight\nand Pat Brown all were involved in major phases of the planning and\nconstruction. And each of them deserves the thanks and the gratitude of\nthe people of California for their diligence in carrying forward what\nonce was a daring concept---the idea of saving the massive surplus water\nrunoff in Northern California and using it for the benefit of millions\nof Californians, even those living hundreds of miles away.\n- 1 -\nPerris Dam\nThe earliest planning took place during Governor Warren's\nadministration. And all that we see before us today, stretching hundreds\nof miles from Oroville in the north to the spot we stand on today, can\nbe traced to those first bold steps.\nGovernor Knight's administration took a giant stride toward assuring\ncompletion through the reorganization of many separate agencies into the\nDepartment of Water Resources. And almost 16 years ago, he turned the\nfirst shovel of earth to relocate the Western Pacific Railroad so that\nLake Oroville could become a reality.\nAnd it was the administration of Pat Brown which provided the key\nfinancial decision that led to this day, through his support for the\nBurns-Porter Act that authorized the $1.75 billion bond sale approved\nby the voters in 1960.\nPerhaps only one who has shared the experience can fully appreciate\nthe tremendous difficulties that were faced in making all these momentous\ndecisions. As Pat well knows, during those days of controversy, it got\npretty hot in the kitchen.\nBut through political skill and determination, they overcame the\nobstacles and won the necessary support to carry forward the plan.\nFor almost 13 years, the state Water Project has been in various\nstages of construction and operation.\nAnd while it falls to me to mark \"job finished\" on the basic\nconstruction, we cannot view this accomplishment without paying tribute\nto the contributions made by Earl Warren, Goodwin Knight and Pat Brown.\nAnd all the hundreds and thousands of other Californians who helped turn\nthe state Water Project into an operational reality.\nIt would be impossible to list them all, but there are two men whose\ncontributions deserve special notice today. One is the late Arthur\nEdmonston, the former state engineer who originated the project in the\n1950s. The pumping plant that carries water over the Tehachapi\nmountains is named after him.\nThe other is a gentleman who is with us today, Bill Gianelli, our\nstate Director of Water Resources. Shortly after I went to Sacramento,\nthe project was confronted by a serious financial stalemate.\nInflation during the Vietnam war had sharply escalated construction\ncosts, interest rates went up and this threatened the orderly completion\nof the basic system.\nWe organized a task force to go to work on this.\n- 2 -\nPerris Dam\nSome facilities had to be deferred, some plans were adjusted, and\nwe obtained some other additional financing.\nIt was with Bill's strong leadership that the financial crisis was\nsolved. There was no delay in completing the basic delivery system on\nschedule.\nThis herculean fiscal task is seldom recognized. But, it is an\nachievement matched only by the magnitude of the Water Project itself.\nLong before the 49'ers arrived in California, our state suffered\nfrom a natural imbalance in distribution and source of the most vital\nresource of all: water. And this imbalance was aggravated by the growth\nof our population. Most of the water was in the north and most of the\npeople were in the south. We had an oversupply in the winter and spring,\ncausing devastating floods that threatened the lives and property of\nhundreds of thousands of our people in northern California.\nThe primary purpose of the plan was to lend nature a hand, to\nconserve water that otherwise would run unused into the sea or cause\ndisastrous flooding, and to store that water safely until it could be\ntransported through a massive network of dams, reservoirs and aqueducts\nto areas where it was needed and could benefit both man and the\nenvironment.\nIt was a great dream, shared by many great Californians. And today\nis a day to pay honor and tribute to all who helped make it come true.\nIt is a tribute to our system that despite differing philosophies\nthose who shared the leadership role in this great undertaking, never\npermitted political conflict to interfere with meeting this challenge,\nwith getting the job done.\nWe have demonstrated on this, as well as in many other ways, what\ncan be accomplished by working together. The partnership between\ngovernment and the private sector in building and financing the Water\nProject is perhaps the most satisfying achievement.\nWhile it will benefit our entire state in one way or another, the\ncosts of constructing, operating and maintaining this 600 mile system will\nbe largely paid by the people who benefit most directly, those who use\nthe water and the power the project produces.\nWhen we consider the massive recreational, agricultural and\nfinancial benefits it will mean for our people now and in the future, it\nis difficult to believe there are those who still oppose both the concept\nand the reality of sharing California's natural water resources among all\nour people.\n- 3 -\nPerris Dam\nEvery now and then, we still receive letters demanding that we call\na halt to the entire program, stop construction and turn the clock back\nso everything associated with the Water Project will revert to the way\nit was.\nSometimes I wonder if those who raise these kinds of objections\nreally mean it. Do they really want a return to the constant danger of\nfloods that swept away homes and jeopardized the lives of our people?\nDo they want the richest agricultural area in our country to once\nagain become a semi-arid stretch of geography where growing a crop would\nbe a capricious gamble with nature?\nDo we want to go back to a time when the lush farm lands of the\nDelta were often rendered useless by salt water intrusion?\nTo return to a time when lack of sufficient water was a constant\nthreat to an area which nowsupports one million people, some of the most\nadvanced technical and industrial complexes in the world?\nIf those were the good old days, they were not all that good.\nFortunately, a majority of our people recognize and support the\nconcept of making use of all our natural resources, not only to meet\nthe needs of man, but to enhance the once hostile natural environment.\nWise conservation has provided a stable water supply for domestic\nand municipal uses to a massive geographic region in which two thirds\nof our state's people live and work.\nVast amounts of clean, smog free, hydroelectric power are being\ngenerated to help meet our constantly increasing need for energy to fuel\nour homes, schools, hospitals and the industries and businesses which\nprovide economic opportunity for our people.\nThe California Water Project has provided needed water for many areas\nof the San Joaquin Valley. And in 1972, the fact that we had the water\navailable prevented millions of dollars in crop losses in a critically\ndry year.\nThe lakes and other recreational areas that have been developed along\nthe route of the state Water Project have been in operation for a number\nof years.\nToday, on the spot where we are standing, another fresh water lake\nis beginning to form. This summer, the Department of Fish and Game will\nbe stocking Lake Perris with fish that will be big enough to catch by\nnext summer.\n- 4 -\nPerris Dam\nBy the first of the year, I am told the state Department of Parks\nand Recreation plans to have in operation some interim facilities for\nsouthern Californians seeking relaxation away from the cities. The\npermanent facilities will be installed and ready for use within another\nyear.\nAll of those things represent the kind of environmental achievements\nthat can be realized when we make the most out of what nature has\nlocated within our borders.\nWhen it is fully operational, by the turn of this century, the\nstate Water Project will be serving 7 out of every 10 Californians.\nThere is not now and there never has been any conflict between the\nconservation and wise use of our water and the equally desirable goal\nof preserving the environment. We must do both.\nOpening up vast new acreage to irrigated farming in once desert\nlands means continued prosperity for California's number one industry:\nagriculture. The rich valleys and farm lands which produce so much of\nour country's food supplies would not be possible without water. And the\njobs that this great industry generates would not be available to our\npeople if Californians had not demonstrated the courage to plan for\nprosperity, by taming the rivers and turning potential floods to\nconstructive and beneficial uses.\nGenerations long after our time will benefit from the wisdom that\nour people and their leaders have shown in carrying forward the Water\nProject. Just as we now honor those pioneers who opened this land, they\nwill acknowledge and cherish the foresight of the generations that did so\nmuch to make it bountiful, to turn unproductive land into lush green\nfields.\nWhen some of our ancestors were crossing the plains in their\nConestoga wagons, braving the elements, risking disease, starvation and\ndeath in the wilderness, they had a blunt saying that symbolized their\ndetermination.\nIn the great move West, they said: \"The cowards never started and\nthe weak died on the way.\"\nThroughout man's history, there have always been doubters and\ncynics, people who said it cannot be done and did not want anyone to try.\nBut the history of our civilization, the great advances that made\nit possible, is not a story of cynics or doomcriers. It is a gallant\nchronicle of the optimists, the determined people, men and women who\ndreamed great dreams and dared to try whatever it takes to make them\ncome true.\n- 5 -\nPerris Dam\nThe people of California are still guided by that daring spirit of\nadventure and the unconquerable determination of those early pioneers.\nAnd our people have demonstrated it time and again. They created\na great state from a wilderness of desert, mountain and seashore. The\nancestors of those early pioneers and millions more who followed in\ntheir path, created not merely a great state, but a way of life, a place\nwhere talent and ingenuity have literally lifted man's horizons to the\nstars.\nWe must never lose that sense of adventure, that thirst for\nknowledge--- or the determination to explore the outer limits of our own\nabilities.\nThose are the intangible things that will really shape our future\nand the future of our state. And it is the result of this dynamic drive\nfor excellence, translated into beneficial achievement, that will be\nthe most valued and lasting legacy we can possibly leave to our children.\n######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes\nin, or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will\nstand by the above quotes).\n- 6 -\n06/5\nW\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR ROF i) REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nDNESDAY A. Ms.\nSacramento, California 95814\nMay 23, 1973\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n5-22-73\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE:\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nCALIFORNIA REDERATION OF\nHilton Hotel, San Francisco\nMay 22, 1973\nSeveral years ago, when I became governor, I had a strong belief,\na conviction, that in recent years government had strayed from the\nlimitations on what constitutes its real responsibility--that government\nwas indeed seeking not only to protect us from each other, which is and\nshould be government's function, but that government was trying to\nprotect us from ourselves. We cannot possibly afford the government\nit would take to do that. Even worse, for government to attempt such a\nthing, governmen t would have to assume powers not granted it by the\npeople and thus our freedom would be curtailed to a dangerous degree.\nThe machinery of state government I inherited those several years\nago, was fast losing the capacity to meet its responsibilities. The\ntwelve month budget for 1966-67 was to be funded by 15 months' revenues.\nThis, of course, meant either drastic cut backs or a giant tax increase.\nWe had to do both. The tax increase was mandatory because government\nhad spent itself into debt and was continuing to spend a million dollars\nmore each day than it was taking in. But we also started to locate\nand eliminate what seemed to be useless fat in government.\nThis brought down on our heads the wrath of all those who believe\ngovernment has some kind of omnipotence and can solve any problem by\nthrowing money at it. I doubt if anyone here can recall one single in-\nstance of criticism in these past six years directed at us for spending.\nFOR\nBut every effort we made at economy was attacked by destroying government'\neffectiveness. When we made changes in hidebound procedures to improve\nthose services which are government's legitimate responsibilities, we\nwere assailed as destroying government on the false altar of penny\npinching. There was no recognition of the fact that the tactic of\n\"cut, squeeze, and trim\" applied only to reduction of fat. The muscle\nfibre necessary to meet the legitimate tasks of government was actually\nbeing strengthened.\nAlmost 1000 highway projects were built with money formerly spent\non administrative overhead. The number of full-time government employees,\nwhich had increased more than 25% in the preceding six years has remained\nvirtually unchanged. At the same time, we have been able to double the\nhighway patrol and take over policing of the freeways in our metropolitan\nareas, freeing the police for crime fighting duties. We are virtually\nthe only state with a steadily declining fatality rate on our streets\nand highways.\n-1-\nFederation of Women\nWe have also added 400 correctional officers in our prisons because\nof the higher ratio of violent to non-violent type inmates. Yet while\nwe have held the overall number of employees level, we have appointed\nmore members of minority groups to policy making positions than all the\nprevious administrations combined.\nIn the treatment of the mentally ill, we have been constantly\naccused of closing hospitals to achieve economy when in truth we were\nchanging from the old fashioned concept of life time warehousing of mental\npatients to the newer idea of better treatment in smaller, more personal\ncommunity health centers aimed at curing and returning them to normal\nliving. The budget for community mental health program has increased\nfrom $18 billion to more than $134 billion. The increases have paid\noff--we are recognized as a leader in this field throughout the nation.\nCharges of false economies in education were made. Yet the budget\nfor the University of California has gone from $240 million to $429\nmillion, a 78% increase in spending to cover a 38% increase in enrollment.\nThere were dire threats that quality would suffer. Well, it has not.\nIn state aid to public schools, K-12, the 6-year increase in dollars has\nbeen almost 16 times greater than the percentage increase in enrollment.\nTwo years ago, the welfare caseload was increasing 40,000 a month\nand 16% of the nation's welfare recipients were in California. We\nproposed a total overhaul and reform of welfare and Medi-Cal. For\nmonths the legislative leadership held out against these reforms until\npublic opinion finally persuaded them to concur. Today, there are\n263,000 fewer people on welfare than there were two years ago. The\neconomies were sizeable, but the truly deserving who depend on us for\nsupport had their grants increased 30%.\nThis record of improvement in service to the people is the same\nthroughout the other agencies and departments of government. Parks and\nrecreational facilities have been expanded and improved and any number\nof services have been speeded up, eliminating tiresome delays.\nI have told you these things because right now we have proposed a\nreform in taxation that we believe will have an even greater effect on\nlife in California than those very successful welfare reforms. But the\nsame complaining voices--the doom criers who have been so consistently\nwrong--are at it again. They are sure that our tax proposal will put\ngovernment in a straitjacket and halt progress for all time to come.\n-2-\nFederation of Women\nThis we categorically deny. But let me tell you how we came to\npropose this program of tax control and limitation. In all our efforts\nto curb spending these past several years the clinching argument that\ncurbed the excesses of the big spenders was: \"We do not have the money.\"\nI am sure you have run up against that line at home now and then--it is\nsort of unanswerable. And yet it never stopped some from trying. During\nthese last six years, even when the state was virtually insolvent they\nwould add hundreds of millions of dollars to the budgets with no thought\nof where and how this spending would be funded. I have vetoed more than\na billion dollars out of the legislation returned to me for signature\nover these past few years. If I had not, the present budget would be\na billion dollars higher than it is. But instead, our constant search\nfor economies plus the reduced costs of welfare and Medi-Cal have at\nlast resulted in a surplus and the prospect of an ongoing surplus which\nmakes possible a tax reduction. By the same token, having a surplus\nmakes holding the line against increased spending more difficult. By\nJune 30, we will have a surplus in the neighborhood of $750 to $850\nmillión. And that is a very nice neighborhood. But spending proposals\nfor that one-time surplus total more than a billion dollars already.\nAnd some of these would be for ongoing programs which means that for the\nsecond year of the program you would have to have a tax increase. That\nis the way government got as big as it is.\nKnowing we were coming to a day when we could begin to cut back on\nthat tax increase of 1967, we appointed a Task Force to go to work on\nthe whole subject of taxes and learn how this constant increase in govern-\nment costs could be controlled. We no longer have the unanswerable\nargument of \"no money.\"\nThis task force attracted some of the most distinguished economists\nin the United States. Dr. Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago,\nPeter Drucker of Claremont; Roger Freeman of the Hoover Institute,\nStanford; Professor C. Lowell Harriss of Columbia University; Professor\nJames Buchanan of Virginia Polytechnic Institute; Professor William\nNiskanen of the University of California at Berkeley, and Professor\nPhoebus Dhrymes of U.C.L.A.\nThese men are of the opinion that government spending in the United\nStates is out of control and that we are at a crossroad. Either we take\naction not only to halt the ever rising cost OF government, but to reduce\nit, or we face economic disaster. It was because of this strongly held\nbelief that they were willing, indeed eager to help our task force.\n-3-\nFederation of Women\nActing on the findings of the task force, we have embarked on a\nplan to return the one time surplus to the taxpayers. This has not been\njoy\nDy\nSOme\nthe\nleadership.\nSuggesting that government return money to the people instead of spending\nit is a little like getting caught between the hog and the bucket---one\ngets buffeted about a bit.\nBut the surplus is the same as an overpayment you might have made\non your utility bill. Unable to accurately forecast the savings from\nthe welfare reforms and our other economies, we overcharged you. We took\nmore from you in taxes last year and this year than we needed to pay the\nongoing costs of government. This overpayment should be returned to\nthose who paid it. One of those in opposition has called this \"an\nunnecessary expenditure of public funds.\"\nThe homeowners and renters property tax relief passed last year was\nto be funded by a 1-cent increase in the sales tax starting June 1. We\nhad hoped the legislature would delay this increase until January 1,\nthus using some of the surplus to subsidize the property tax relief.\nThis would in effect be a return to those who contributed to the\nsurplus by way of the sales tax. Most of the surplus, however, can be\nattributed to the income tax so an amount roughly equal to that sales\ntax rebate would be returned as a credit of up to 20% on this year's\nincome tax.\nThe second part of our plan has to do with that ongoing surplus I\nmentioned. We propose an ongoing cut in the income tax of 7½% beginning\nJanuary 1. For both the one time rebate and the ongoing tax cut, we\nwould also completely wipe out the income tax for families with incomes\nof $8,000 or less and individuals below $4,000 a year.\nThird and most important, we propose a long range plan involving\nan amendment to the State Constitution. The present tax structure of our\nstate takes 8.75% out of every income dollar in California. We propose\nreducing this by .1% each year for 15 years until the percentage of the\npeople's total income the state takes in taxes is about 7%. This would\nthen become a ceiling beyond which the state could not go without a vote\nof the people.\nOur economic experts pointed out to us that in 1930 governments,\n--federal, state and local combined--only took 15% of the people's\nearnings. By 1950, this had become 32% and today government at all levels\nis taking 44.7 cents out of every income dollar. Projecting this steady\nrate of increase forward for 15 years, government will be taking more\nFederation of Women\nGovernment is an umpire--a policeman if you will. It is not a\nproducer of goods or wealth. When government takes this much of the\npeople's money, it creates a drag on the economy, causing economic slump.\nalla unemployment. History reveals that no society has long survived\na tax burden that reached one-third of the people's earnings. Looking\nback on the fallen empires of the past one sees the first warning signs\nappear. As the burden grows heavier, there is growing a lack of respect\nfor government and the law. Fraud becomes widespread and crime increases\nAre we to say none of those things are taking place here?\nIs it so radical to suggest that we have the knowledge and\nintelligence in this land of free enterprise to find that percentage of\nthe people's earnings which must be left in their hands if free enterprise\nis to continue?\nMost of the opposition to this idea has come from within government.\nOne legislator has told us such a plan would make it impossible for\ngovernment to \"continue re-distributing the earnings of the people.\"\nI submit that that is not a proper function of government. You and I do\nnot have the right to take the earnings of one to give to another and\ntherefore we cannot give such power to government.\nA number of points, none of them valid, have been raised in an\n)\neffort to cast doubt on this proposal.\nThe legislative analyst assails our figures--claiming we have\nexaggerated--that people are not paying 44.7% in taxes. We arrived at\nour figure by taking the total cost of all governmental institutions and\nsimply determining what percentage that is compared to the total revenues\nof the people. There actually is no other true way than to relate the\ncost of government to the income of those who pay for government.\nNevertheless we rechecked with our original source the Tax\nFoundation in New York and submitted the legislative analyst figures\nto them.\nQuoting from their reply--\"an estimate of taxes as a proportion of\npersonal income in California of 40% would not be far off. The figures\nfor total revenues would of course be several percentage points higher.\"\nIn other words \"40% or 40 plus several percentage\" points--the\npoint is taxes are too high and every citizen knows it.\nAn equally spurious and somewhat demogogic objection is that our\nproposal benefits the rich at the expense of the poor. Our legislative\nleader cites the case of an individual who would only get a $2.50 rebate\nfrom the surplus while another would be $250. Well, possibly there would\nbe such cases. But the man who would get $2.50 only had a $12.50 tax\nbill to begin with. The one getting $250 owed $1,250 and after his\nrebate he will still owe $1,000 while the other individual will owe only\n$10.\nAgain, let me point out this is not a case of government largerse-\nof handing out charity or gifts. We are talking about the return--as\nfairly as it can be worked out-of over-payments the people made.\n-5-\nFederation of Women\nAs one of our cabinet members, Frank Walton, said the other day:\n\"If you over pay your utility bill, the company returns the over-payment\nto you. It doesn't divide it up among your neighbors.\"\nAs I told you, families with earnings of $8,000 or less will get a\n100% rebate.\n(tax)\nAttempts have been made to confuse you by charging the plan we have\nproposed invades the prerogative of the legislature and will tie the\nlegislature's hands in the future by fixing tax rates in the constitution\nIt will do no such thing. The Constitution will simply place a limit on\nthe percentage of the combined income of all the people that the state\ncan take in taxes. The people, by a simple majority vote, can raise\nthat limit any time they choose and the legislature can do so in\nemergency situations. Beyond that, however, nothing in this proposal\nchanges the legislature's right to alter the tax structure by raising\nor lowering specific taxes---adopting new ones or cancelling old ones.\nOne assemblyman has protested because our program does not eliminate\nthe oil depletion allowance. Of course it does not---the legislature has\nthe power to do this and it always has had such power.\nThe truth about the nit, picking and carping criticism is that many\nof those who are talking the loudest in the legislative chambers do not\nwhile\neven believe their own words. The have admitted to us that/they will\ncontinue to block the people's right to vote on this they really can not\nfind anything wrong with our proposal, anything wrong, that is, except tha\nphilisophically they believe government should take even more of the\npeople's earnings because only government has the wisdom to spend that\nmoney properly for the people's own good.\nBecause of this we have gone to you--the people, asking you to place\nthis on the ballot by petition. Only a vote of the people can amend\nthe Constitution and two methods provide for such a vote. The legislature\ncan by a two-thirds majority place it on the ballot as they did with\n11 measures in the last election; or the people can do it by petition.\nWe submitted this to the legislature and it has been blocked by the\nassembly leadership, just as that same leadership refused to implement\nthe deathpenalty approved overwhelmingly by the people at the last\nelection.\nIf you are wondering why we have decided on a special election,\n(which incidentally will cost about $3 million not $10 million), it is\nto begin the income tax reduction by January 1. Waiting for the next\ngeneral election would delay the cost one and possibly two years. Since\nthe savings to you in that one part of the plan alone amounts to some\n$200 million a year, a $3 million investment in a special election seems\nlike a good idea.\n-6-\nFederation of Women\nThose who say the Tax Control and Tax Limitation Plan will not work\nor that it will raise your local taxes are the same ones who said the\nwelfare reforms would not work and that property taxes would have to\nraised. well, the reforms nave WOLKED better than we predicted they\nwould. The President has taken our people to H.E.W. in Washington to try\nto put them into effect nationally and 42 of our 58 California counties\nwere able to lower their taxes.\nThese are the same people who told us loudly and at great length\ntwo years ago that we faced a gigantic deficit unless we had a $750\nmillion tax increase. We did not have the tax increase and we wound up\nthe year with a $250 million surplus.\nBut you know, as I said earlier, that this household we call\nCalifornia must have the resources to meet its responsibilities; to see\nthat education is provided for your children, care is given to those in\nneed and the battle to preserve the environment carried on. You want\nan answer to the charge that a tax limit would put the state in a fiscal\nstraitjacket?\nUnder the limit we have proposed, the state will be able to double\nits budget in the next 10 years and triple it in 15. The revenues will\nbe sufficient to meet all the increased costs due to inflation and\npopulation growth, and will provide an additional $41.5 billion for new\nprograms and services in the next 15 years. If that is a straitjacket,\nit's a pretty loose fit.\nThis is an idea whose time has come. Taxes are the biggest cost\nitem your family has. It costs you more to pay for government than it\ndoes to feed, clothe and provide housing for your entire family.\nIt is an arrogant denial of the democratic process for a few legis-\nlators to say the people must not even be allowed to vote on something as\nfundamental as their right to their own earnings.\nThe petitions now being circulated do not ask for approval of the\nplan; they simply ask that it be put on the ballot. The people then\nwill have until next November to inform themselves and determine whether\nthey do or do not want a return of their money and a reduction in the\npresent tax burden.\n-7-\n###########\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes\nin, or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand\nby the above quotes).\n5/30\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: WEDNESDAY P.Ms.\nSacramento, California 95814\nMay 30, 1973\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n5-29-73\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nSTATE WOMEN'S AND MEN'S CLUB LUNCHEON\nSacramento\nMay 30, 1973\nTwo years ago, we met during a period of austerity for state\ngovernment. I am sure you recall the national economic decline and the\nsevere economic pinch which had forced us to forego the usual cost of\nliving salary increases. You, however, were as warm and kind in your\nwelcome as you have always been. I told you that we had high hopes that\nour belt-tightening would bring us through the temporary economic\ndislocation and back to a sound fiscal basis where such measures would\nno longer be necessary. We were asking for approval of a comprehensive\noverhaul of the state's public assistance programs so that welfare costs\ncould be finally brought under reasonable control.\nMany of the reforms were adopted. And this, plus a sharp upturn in\nthe economy brought us through that period of austerity.\nThere was never any question in our minds about what we would do\nwhen the financial picture brightened.\nNow, we have been able to see a lot more sunshine. We have embarked\non a two phase program to not only provide a cost-of-living salary\nincrease, but also to correct some of the long standing inequities in\nstate pay levels.\nWe proposed a total pay package last year averaging 8.4 percent and\ngot almost all of it. Nine tenths of one percent was held back by the\nnational pay board because of the wage and price controls then in effect.\nBut that portion of the salary increase temporarily held back did not go\nback to the treasury.\nIt has been included in the second phase of the two part program of\nsalary adjustments. That pay package totals more than $227 million and\naverages 12.9 percent the full amount recommended by the State Personnel\nBoard.\nThe full amount is included in the 1973-74 state budget which I\nsubmitted to the legislature.\nOur administration is making every effort to assure that these salary\nincreases remain in the budget throughout the legislative process.\n- 1 -\nWomen 's/Men's Club\nAnd the state will vigorously seek to gain approval for the full\namount from the national Cost of Living Council.\nThe Personnel Board has been holding hearings and will determine\nthe exact amounts of the inequity adjustments for various classifications.\nYou were patient during a lean year. Now that the state is in much\nbetter financial shape, we intend to upgrade state salary levels.\nAs many of you know, there is another part of our long range program\ninvolving state salaries.\nThat is a study by private consultants of the state's overall system\nfor administering salaries and employee benefits.\nIt was commissioned last year by the State Personnel Board in\ncooperation with the Department of Finance and the Public Employee's\nRetirement System, and was conducted by the internationally known\nmanagement consulting firm of Cresap, McCormick and Paget. They had the\nhelp of other specialists from the Wyatt Company, actuaries and benefits\nconsultants and from Charles Bonini, Associate Professor of Management\nScience at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business.\nPhase one of this study, involving the methods used by the Personnel\nBoard in developing various classifications and the means by which\nsalaries are established, was completed late in February of this year.\nThe second phase involves an evaluation of the state's compensation\npolicies and practices. This was presented to the State Personnel Board\nlast week.\nIn a subsequent presentation, the board will be given a survey of\nthe benefit preferences of state employees. This is simply a survey that\nwill give the Personnel Board a view of what priorities you yourselves\nplace on various employee benefits and should be very helpful in\ndeveloping future improvements in our benefit structure.\nThese three reports, taken together, represent the first major review\nof the state's salary and benefit program in many years and may well be\nthe most comprehensive overview of this vast and complex part of state\ngovernment in California's history.\nThe firm conducting this study has recognized the vital interest\nthat state employees and others have in this overall subject. So before\nthey forward their final recommendations to James Stearns, the secretary\nfor Agriculture and Services and my representative in employer-employee\nmatters, they have recommended that a measured and exhaustive series of\npublic hearings be held.\n- 2 -\n's/Men's Club\nI have written to Robert Wald, the president of the Personnel Board,\nurging the Board to conduct such hearings on the reports and findings\nof the various study groups.\nIn this way, we hope and we expect that every one will have an\nopportunity to make their views known in detail. This includes state\nemployees and their organizations, the people of California and their\nelected representatives as well as representatives of the administration\nand the managers of the executive branch of state government.\nThis free and open discussion will assure that the ultimate outcome\nwillbe of lasting benefit. And that from these studies and hearings\nwill come a legislative package developed from the Personnel Board's\nrecommendations and including their considered evaluation of all the\nrecommendations presented to the board by employees, their organizations\nand all others who will participate in the hearings.\nOur goal is an equitable salary and benefit program that is fair\nto employees and which recognizes their contribution to an efficient\nand effective state government.\nFeeling sure of your interest in this subject, I wanted to bring\nyou up to date on the status of these important studies as well as our\nsalary recommendations for the coming year.\nNow let me ask you to put on the other hat we all wear. We are\ntaxpaying citizens and, as such, have a vital stake in how efficiently\nand effectively the state government is conducted.\nYou have a double interest because when government's resources are\nstretched too thin, it makes it that much more difficult for the state\nto properly fund its other priorities, including salary adjustments.\nWe experienced that when welfare costs went out of control and we\ndon't want to see it happen again.\nAnd it need not happen. The state's financial picture is much\nbrighter now than it was a couple of years ago. In fact, we have a\nsurplus that will total about $829 million according to the latest\nofficial estimates.\nYou also know that we have proposed returning this surplus to the\npeople as part of a two-part program to achieve a measure of tax relief\nfor our people, not just this year but permanently.\nThe surplus resulted from a variety of sources, and we believe\nthe state has an obligation to return it in as fair and equitable a way\nas we can without incurring unnecessary administrative costs.\n- 3 -\nWomen's/Men's Club\nWe have proposed deferring the scheduled one cent sales tax increase\nuntil January of next year (this is part of the bipartisan tax reform\nprogram the legislature adopted last year to provide homeowner and\nrenter tax relief).\nIn this way, all those who pay sales taxes will receive a\nproportionate share of the surplus.\nThe major part of the surplus resulted from income taxes. We want\nto recognize this through a 20 percent income tax rebate or credit.\nNext April 15, you would figure up what you owe and deduct 20 percent,\nor if it has already been taken out of your pay, it will be returned\nas an overpayment.\nTo ease the tax burden of those in the lowest income brackets, we\nhave proposed a 100 percent income tax rebate, an elimination of the\nstate income tax obligation of all families with incomes of $8,000 or\nless and $4,000 for individuals.\nMost of you have been around Sacramento longer than I have. And I\nknow you have heard that there are other proposals for disposing of the\nsurplus. Some want to simply spend it and others want to give it all\nto only one group of taxpayers.\nWell, this is not the state's money to spend. In that lean year I\nspoke of, when the income of our people was down, I did not hear any\nsuggestions that we reduce taxes. There were plenty of voices raised\ndemanding they be increased by more than $700 million.\nThe plain truth is this surplus represents an overcharge and it\nshould be returned to the people who paid it. And like any other rebate\nof an overcharge, it should be returned as proportionately as possible.\nI know you have heard criticism of this as favoring the rich or the\nmore affluent middle class. It is said that a 20 percent rebate will\nreturn only $2.50 to one taxpayer while someone in the higher brackets\nwould receive $250.\nWell, I am sure there can be such cases. But the citizen who will\nget back only $2.50, only paid $12.50. And the person whose 20 percent\nrebate amounts to $250, paid a total tax bill of $1,250. After the\nrefunds, he will still be paying $1,000 to the other fellow's $10.\nOne of our cabinet members, Frank Walton, made the point another way.\nWhen the local utility overcharges you and makes a refund, you get it\nback. They do not distribute it down the block among your neighbors.\n- 4 -\nWomen's/Men's Club\nBy dividing the surplus through a sales tax deferral and income tax\nrebate and by eliminating the total tax burden of those making less\nthan $8,000, we will be returning this surplus in the fairest possible\nmanner plus giving extra relief to those who need it most.\nJust as with the state salary adjustments, our effort to reduce\ntaxes also comes in two parts. The second part involves a longer range\nprogram designed to gradually reduce the percentage of the people's\nincome that the state takes in state taxes.\nI know you have heard about it. But let me explain the philosophy\nbehind it and the reasons we feel that it is so necessary to bring\ntotal government spending under control.\nUntil 1930, total government spending averaged out to about 15\npercent of the people's income. By 1950, that had grown to around 32\npercent and this year, it will run around 44 percent.\nThis percentage has grown through good times and bad. Somehow, the\nlaw of gravity does not seem to work with government spending.\nLast year we appointed a task force to look into the overall tax\npolicy and to see if we could devise some way to reduce the tax burden\nof the people---and yet still assure ample revenues to finance necessary\nand ongoing expenses of government providing revenue to cover new\nprograms as well as the impact of inflation and population growth.\nOur task force, which included some of the finest economists and\nmanagement consultants in America, worked for more than six months\nand did not, as some would lead you to believe suggest simply cutting\ngovernment spending in large chunks with no regard for essential services\nThey recognize that government is an essential function and taxes\nare necessary to pay for it. But they also recognized something that\nmany people are unwilling to concede: that the total cost of government\nhas grown to an intolerable level. If the same rate of growth continues,\nin 15 short years almost 55 percent of the people's income will be\ngoing for government.\nNo country in history has ever long survived a tax burden that\nreached one third of its citizens' earnings. Indeed, the first signs\nof disintegration begin when the total tax burden hits 25 percent.\nWe must start bringing government costs under control. When\ngovernment increases its share of the people's income, the people---and\nthat includes you and your families have less of their own earnings to\nspend or invest to improve their own standard of living.\n- 5\nWomen's/Men's Club\nA recent national poll showed that 76 percent of the people in\nAmerica recognize government spending, mainly at the federal level, as\na major cause of inflation.\nIf we can bring government spending under control, it will go a\nlong way toward controlling inflation. And if we control inflation, the\nsalary increases you get will be worth more in real terms, rather than\nrepresenting simply a new set of numbers on your check stub---the part\nyou can't cash.\nLast year, we adopted a major program of homeowner tax relief.\nWhatever your partisan affiliation and regardless of how you feel about\nour current program, I believe you will agree that if ever there was a\nconcensus on anything, that concensus was reached last year. Major\nleaders of both parties agreed that the homeowner's property taxes had\nreached an intolerable level and simply had to be scaled back. So we got\ntogether on tax reform. But that was a shift from one unfair tax to a\nbroader based tax.\nNow we must deal with the problem of reducing the entire tax burden.\nUnless we do something, there will come a day when our free private\neconomy will simply be unable to generate the jobs and the expansion of\nbusiness necessary to shoulder such a massive burden.\nI do not have to tell you that what happens in the private sector\nconcerns you. We learned that during the economic downturn a couple of\nyears ago.\nEighty percent of the jobs in this country are in the private sector\nand it is from the private sector, from business, industry and from\nindividuals, that government receives its operating funds.\nIf taxation becomes a drag on the private sector, we do not have a\nhealthy economy, and if we do not have that, we will not have a healthy\nbalance in the state's accounts, and we will not be able to properly fund\nessential programs.\nThe plain truth again is: it is ime to slow down the rate of\ngovernment's total spending so that the real income of the people can\nincrease.\nSchool enrollment is declining. We just dedicated the last major\nsegment of the great water project. The latest census report shows the\npopulation has reached a level of zero growth nationally.\n- 6 -\nWomen's/Men's Club\nAll this does not mean we will not have additional costs for\ngovernment. But it does mean the need for sharply increased revenues\nwill not be as great as it was during the years of post-war growth.\nIf our plan is adopted, it will mean an additional ongoing 7½\npercent income tax reduction in addition to this year's 20 percent\nrebate. Families earning $8,000 or less will have their state income\ntax burden eliminated permanently, not just this year. In 10 years, the\nstate could provide another 60 percent reduction in state income taxes\nor a cut of two cents in the sales tax or any combination of those or\nother taxes as the legislature chooses. And this could be accomplished\nwithin a revenue limit that still would allow the state to have a budget\ntwice the size of this year's budget $18.6 billion.\nThe legislature would retain full authority to decide on program\npriorities and it would have the right to decide which taxes to reduce\nand by how much.\nThe important thing is, we will be stabilizing government costs at\na more reasonable percentage of the peoples' income. And this can help\nreduce inflationary pressures so that the pay increases you receive in\nthe future will be worth more in actual purchasing power.\nWe believe the people have a right to decide how much of their\nincome they can afford to spend for government. And we believe that they\nhave an absolute right to at least vote on this proposal, just as they\ndo on other major issues. That is all we are asking in our initiative\ncampaign.\nCareer state workers are just as interested in efficient government\nand lower taxes as any other group of citizens. I have told you before\nwe have the finest group of state employees of any state in the country.\nI believe you deserve the pay raises and inequity adjustments we have\nproposed this year.\nAnd I believe that the state should make all reasonable efforts to\ncontinue to upgrade salary and benefit programs.\nAnd I also know that you are intelligent enough to realize that the\ntotal tax burden has reached an intolerable level. When spending exceeds\noutgo over a period of time, bankruptcy is the result.\nIf we continue to saddle our people and the private sector with a\ntax burden that takes half or more of their income, there will come a day\nwhen the free economic system that generates all taxes will be simply\nunable to carry the load.\nIf we are to have stable government and stable career employment\nopportunities in government, we must have a stable private economy. If\nthe private economy falters or collapses under its tax burden, the entire\nstructure of government can fall with it---it has done so in the past.\nWe have testimony to that in the bones of dead empires.\n######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes).\n81/9\n/\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: MONDAY P.M.s.\nSacramento, California 95814\nJUNE 18, 1973\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-15-73\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nUNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS\nSan Francisco\nJune 18, 1973\nMore than three-fourths of America's population now live and work\nin so-called urban clusters. And these areas which you largely govern-\npresent some of the most critical problems facing our country.\nIt has been fashionable in some circles to suggest that cities are\nsimply ungovernable, the problems too complex, and the resources too\nlimited.\nThat, of course, is no answer. The two levels of government we\nrepresent are the very foundation of America's federalist system. And\nyou are perhaps most important of all.\nIt is at your level that government is in direct contact with\npeople, their problems and their needs. And through various\nadministrative machinery, the state is a partner in helping provide\nessential services everything from schools to highways and health\nservices.\nThere was a time and not too long ago that this was recognized\nin the tax structure. Local government received most of the revenue\nbecause it provided most of the services the people want and need,\nStates received somewhat less of the total and the federal government\nreceived the smallest share of all.\nThose ratios have long since been reversed. Today, Washington\ncollects two-thirds of all tax dollars. And we divide what is left.\nIt is true that state and local governments receive grants through\nspecific federal programs. But somehow, a funny thing happeng to\nmoney making the round trip through those puzzle palaces on the Potomac.\nThe returning dollar never seems to stretch as far as the dollar produced\nthrough our own revenue sources. For one thing, they come wrapped in\nred tape which cannot be unravelled without a costly administrative\nstructure.\nThe concept of revenue sharing advocated and supported by many\nmayors and governors is an acknowledgement of the administrative\nimpossibility of trying to run government from the federal level.\n- 1 -\nMayors\nSome of you may not agree that revenue sharing is the final answer\nto the financial problems confronting our cities and other areas of\nlocal government. In my view, it is an important step in the right\ndirection. It returns to state and local government the authority to\nestablish our own financial priorities and gives us flexibility in\ndecision-making- essential to efficient government at any level.\nIn this land of such great diversity, we must never lose that\nflexibility. The simple truth is that state and local governments are\nbest equipped to meet and solve the problems of day to day living.\nWhatever methods we develop to improve financial support of these\nareas of government must recognize that fact.\nThe environmental challenge continues to be a major factor in many\nof the decisions made at your level of government as well as in the\nlegislatures of the states.\nYet the need to develop additional job opportunities for our people,\nparticularly those in the cities, requires an orderly and balanced\nexpansion of business and industry. In preserving the environment, we\ncannot afford to adopt policies that stagnate or retard the necessary\nexpansion of our economy.\nThe direction of the 1970s and 1980s may not simply be finding ways\nto accommodate more people, but more toward improving the quality of life\nfor a more stable population, catching up on the problems that have\nevolved during the earlier years of swift growth.\nLocal and state government can be the catalyst for constructive\nchange.\nCalifornia had to be a pioneer in the fight against air pollution,\nand this led us into the whole arena of environmental protection. We are\nproud of what we have accomplished in that field and in some other areas.\nMany of the welfare reforms we adopted in our state two years ago\nare now being carried to other states and the federal government. Other\nstates are embarked on similar innovations, which may prove useful on a\nnational scale.\nThis cross-pollination of ideas, sort of a pilot program test of new\nconcepts, is an important part of our overall system. It is one of our\ngreatest strengths and it can be maintained only by preserving a strong\nstructure of local and state government. I am sure many of you will have\nan opportunity to ride on the Bay Area Rapid Transit System while you are\nvisiting with us this week. Systems such as BART and other types of\nurban mass transportation offer another great area of challenge for\ngovernment below the federal level.\n- 2 -\nConference of Mayors\nRight now in California, we have a task force on local government\ntaking a look at our state's multi-layer structure of government below\nthe state level.\nWe have some 5,800 separate units of local government. There are\n58 counties, 407 incorporated cities, about 1,150 school districts and\nalmost 4,200 special service districts, meeting every type of public\nneed from mosquito abatement to cemetery services.\nI am sure the same growth pattern has occurred in many of your own\nstates, too.\nBecause this proliferation occurred over a long period of time,\nwith each particular unit established for one specific purpose, we now\nhave what appears to the average citizen as literally a maze of\ngovernment.\nThe purpose of our task force study is to try to chart a clearer\npath through that maze, to make the most searching appraisal ever under-\ntaken of the strengths and weaknesses of our present structure of local\ngovernment. We want to build on the strengths and eliminate the\nweaknesses.\nWe are looking into the financing of local government and the\npublic service responsibilities assigned to each level. We want to know\nif the responsibilities for providing various services are assigned in a\nlogical and efficient way and whether the financial support necessary to\nmaintin these services is sufficient.\nWe are looking at boundary lines and other geographic divisions of\nresponsibility. If size is a problem, we want to know it. Perhaps some\nof our governmental units are too big or too small in area or population\nfor the most efficient operation. If there is an ideal size, we want to\nfind out what it is. We already know that there may be substantial\nsavings in consolidation of certain services, eliminating administrative\ncosts that may unnecessarily increase the property owner's tax bill or\nthe cost of the service provided.\nIn some of our larger counties, a certain degree of decentralizatio:\nof services is desirable, both for operating efficiency and to assure\nmaximum service to the public. We want to find out if a consolidation\nof some functions, such as fire protection, may offer a way to improve\nservice, reduce costs and even have a favorable impact on homeowner\nfire insurance rates.\nWe are working with your colleagues in the California League of\nCities, the County Supervisors association and the special districts.\n3 I I\nConference of Mayors\nWe want their suggestions, their recommendations and their ideas\nfor strengthening local government to make it more responsive to the\npeople's needs and better equipped to meet those needs.\nWe value the opinions of mayors and county government leaders.\nYou have been on the firing line, you know where the wheels of government\nhave been squeaking and you can help us find where to put in the oil.\nOur goal is simple! We told the task force to ask themselves, if\nthey had to do the job from scratch, would they develop the present\nwidely divergent and multi-layer structure of local government we have\nnow?\nIf there is a better way, a way that will help save money, provide\nbetter service and make government more accountable to the people, we\nwant to find what it is. And we want to implement it, but only if the\npeople agree.\nFor what it may be worth, you have my sincere wishes for a\nconstructive and productive convention here this week.\nI do not accept the view that any of our urban problems are beyond\nsolution, even those that may seem staggering at first. If we can\ndevelop the means of sending a man to the moon and bringing him back\nsafely, surely we can develop a way to collect the garbage efficiently,\nand provide a safe, healthful and productive environment for the people\nin our urban areas.\nFormer President Harry Truman, who took on some pretty formidable\ntasks himself in his lifetime, once said that if he could have drafted\nhis own epitaph, it would be simply: \"He done his damnedest.\"\nIf we do the same, I am confident that the American people, working\ntogether through elected representatives, will be able to find the right\nanswers to whatever problems we have in our cities or anywhere else.\n######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes).\n- 4 -\n6/22\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: FRIDAY P.Ms.\nSacramento, California 95814\nJune 22, 1973\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-21-73\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nAMERICAN LEGION CONVENTION, ANAHEIM\nJune 22, 1973\nLast year when we met at San Jose, I mentioned the signing of a\ncertain bill in which you were very interested. And I got the best\nround of applause of the day.\nWell, the business I used to be in taught me the value of a good\nopening line when I find it, so I will start on the same subject again.\nActually, there have been some developments on this bill designed\nto provide property tax exemptions for charitable veterans' organizations\nIt turned out there were some technical corrections to be made, so I\nhave signed urgency legislation to implement the corrections. The\nmeasure took effect last March 5.\nAnd a few days ago, the Attorney General upheld the constitutionalit)\nof the legislation. I thought you would be interested in both those\ndevelopments.\nBecause of all the charitable activities your organization sponsors,\nthis exemption is justified and I hope the issue is settled.\nWe don't always have that kind of luck with court rulings. I\nsometimes think if someone appealed the 10 Commandments to some of our\ncourts they would rule \"thou shalt not, unless you feel strongly to\nthe contrary.\"\nMuch has happened since we met together last year.\nAfter almost a decade of war in Southeast Asia, the ground fighting\nin Vietnam is over for America and our troops have come home. Best of\nall, the known prisoners of war are back with their families and loved\nones.\nRecall, if you will, this time last year when we met at San Jose.\nThe President was being urged to simply pull out of Vietnam and abandon\nthe last bargaining power we had to secure the release of those POWs.\nVoices were raised in protest against mining the harbor at Haiphong,\nthe entry port for the munitions that had been used to maim and kill our\nyoung men. It was said that this would prolong the conflict. Then when\nthe enemy rejected a generous offer of peace and launched a new offensive,\nthe nation found it necessary to resume bombing in North Vietnam. And\nagain the enemy was encouraged in its aggression by a chorus of \"made\nin America\" criticism.\n- 1 -\nAmerican Legion\nThere were dire predictions that the raids would mean a longer war,\nthat it would mean even more years in communist prison camps for the POWS\nBut according to those imprisoned men, their treatment improved\nmightily when we mined the harbor and resumed the bombing.\nI asked some of these men when they really felt in their hearts\nthat they would be returned to their homes and loved ones. To a man,\nthey said \"on December 18 when the B-52s started hitting Hanoi. They\ntold me they stood and cheered when they saw and heard the planes over\nHanoi. They knew then, as they saw their captors cower in fear and\ndissolve in hysteria, that the end was near. And they added \"had we\ndone it years earlier, we would have been home years earlier.\"\nThere is a lesson in the Vietnam war for all of us. If military\npower must be exerted to preserve our freedom or that of our allies,\nthe purpose must be clearly spelled out for the people before the\nfirst troops go ashore.\nAnd young Americans must never again be forced to fight under\nlimitations that give all the advantage to the enemy. If a man is asked\nto fight and, if need be, die for his country his country has an\nobligation to support him in winning and ending the conflict as quickly\nas possible.\nThe draft has been suspended, no longer are young men being called\nup at the rate of 50,000 a month. The tensions and the conflict\nassociated with the Vietnam war have subsided.\nAnd there are encouraging signs on the international scene that we\nhave a great opportunity to secure the lasting peace we have always\nwanted.\nBut peace treaties and non-aggression pacts are effective only if\nboth sides sincerely want peace and are willing to abide by all the terms.\nThe dust-bin of history is littered with the remains of those\ncountries which relied only on diplomacy to secure their freedom. We\nmust never forget in the final analysis that it is our military,\nindustrial and economic strength that offers the best guarantee of peace\nfor America in times of danger.\nWe dare not heed the counsel of those who would risk America's\nfreedom through one-sided disarmament proposals that our country would\ncarry out honorably, but which the other side might evade or ignore.\nOur first commitment must be to maintain and nourish in the hearts\nand the minds of our young people the love of freedom that you and\nmillions like you have exhibited during times of crisis.\nAmerican Legion\nOur young people, who offer such great promise, must learn to\nappreciate this heritage of freedom for which our people have paid such\nan awesome price.\nIn a little more than two years, the United States will observe its\n200th anniversary as a nation. And we have our own state program under\nway to mark this historic event. It is called the American Revolution\nBicentennial Commission of California and its major function is to\ncoordinate all the varied and different activities that will be part\nof the observance.\nCalifornia will be emphasizing its contribution to the growth and\npregress of our country. Groups throughout the state will be sponsoring\ndifferent programs, contests and ceremonials as part of the bicentennial\nobservance.\nThere will be projects to recognize almost every aspect of our\nculture, our history and the part that different groups played in creating\nthe California and the United States of today.\nAs part of this, a replica of the USS President, one of the first\nsix frigates in the U.S. navy, is being built. The original ship was\nlaunched in April 1800 and was the flagship of the American fleet during\nthe War of 1812.\nThe replica is scheduled to tour ports of call throughout the\nUnited States and the world for three years and after that, it is to\nbecome a permanent exhibition with a home berth in California.\nThe overall California observance will feature the Gold Rush theme\nbecause that great migration played such a major role in our history.\nThe bicentennial commission has established an office in Sacramento\nand can provide you with information on the various projects now under\nway or being planned. I mention this because I know many of your\norganizations will want to participate with their own projects. And\nI can think of no more appropriate group to help mark this 200th\nanniversary of a free America than the American Legion.\nThe pessimists who say the American dream is a nightmare have been\npretty vocal in these past few years. But they have not had as much\nsuccess as they would like to think.\nA few weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting the San Diego Naval\nTraining Center on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. During the\nceremony, they presented an award to the outstanding recruit. He was a\nfine young man, and he had demonstrated his determination to do his best\nfor his country during those early weeks of military service,\n- 3 -\nAmerican Legion\nHis mother was there for the ceremony, full of pride in her son.\nAnd as we stood there, looking out at the assembled ranks, young men\nfrom the farmlands of the midwest, from the cities, from every part of\nAmerica, I could not help but think of the hundreds of thousands of\nsimilar young men who have answered the call to duty over these past\n50 years.\nMany of them went on to take part in some of the bloodiest battles\nour country has ever had to fight. And some of them did not come back.\nBut they were all there that day, in spirit at least. The memory\nof their service and their sacrifice is always present.\nWhenever America has faced a crisis, we somehow always produce the\nleaders and the men needed to carry us through to victory. That is part\nof the strength of our system. It cannot be explained with the logical\nprecision of a computer program.\nPerhaps that is because spiritual values can never be adequately\nmeasured in material terms. Things like faith, love of country, courage\nand dedication they are all part of the inner strength of America.\nAnd sometimes, they do not become self-evident until there is a time of\ncrisis.\nBut those values are part of our heritage. And so long as a majorit\nof our people never lose them we do not have to worry about the future.\nIn a way, the ending of the Vietnam War is the beginning of a new\nand perhaps even more difficult era for America.\nWe can no longer afford the luxury of ignoring the economic\nbarometer. Right now, our national debt is more than $450 billion. The\ninterest on this debt alone is four times what the entire federal budget\ncost 40 years ago.\nWe have a balance of payments deficit. Those countries we helped\nafter World War II have rebuilt their industrial strength with our help\nand our blessings.\nAnd our own products must compete against theirs in the world\nmarket place.\nOur productivity the amount of goods and services produced per\nman per man hour has lagged far behind that of other industrial nations.\nThe constant battle to contain inflation, has been aggravated by\nthe high tax burden our people have borne so long and so patiently.\nAt this time in our history, we have reached the moment of truth.\nToday, the challenge before America is not only one of potential external\nforce.\n- 4 -\nAmerican Legion\nIt is, instead, a threat of internal economic decay, a faltering\nof purpose in our long history of progress. It is a cynicism, a national\nmood of indifference toward critical problems involving our economy that\ncan no longer be ignored.\nWe will not whip inflation by shrugging our shoulders and saying\nit is somebody else's problem. It is everybody's problem.\nIf we are to have lower prices, there must be greater efficiency,\nin our factories, on our farms, in our offices. And if we are to assure\nour prosperity, our people can no longer afford to pay a higher and\nhigher percentage of their income in taxes.\nWe must bring government spending under control if the wage gains\nour people make are to be real instead of an endless cycle of pay\nincreases followed by higher tax deductions, followed by legitimate\ndemands for even higher wages so that the people can pay even higher taxe.\nThis is the classic cycle that leads to inflation. And, that,\nalong with our other economic problems, is why our people have\ndifficulty making ends meet.\nGovernment takes the first and largest slice of everyone's income.\nIn 1930, total government spending took about 15 percentof the people's\nincome. Twenty years later, it was around 32 percent. And today the\ncombined total government spending federal, state and local---has\nreached a level that represents 44.7 percent of total personal income.\nAs you well know, we have embarked on an unprecedented program to\ndeal with this problem, at least at the state level.\nI have always tried to avoid partisan topics in my meetings with you\nand while a few would have you believe this is a partisan issue, it is not\nHigh taxes affect us all Democrats, Republicans and Independents.\nThe tax burden today has become so great that it threatens to undermine\nour free enterprise economy, the economy that provides job opportunities\nfor 4/5ths of our people and pays the freight for all of government at\nevery level.\nAfter 61/2 years of cutting, squeezing and trimming in every way we\ncan, we believe we have a pretty lean and efficient state government.\nAt least, our critics keep telling us it ought to be a lot fatter---even\nif it means higher taxes.\nBut we believe it is time for America to put its economic house in\norder. And part of this demands a leveling off in the tax burden, a\nreduction of taxes so that the take home pay of the people can be\nallowed to grow a little faster than their tax deduction.\n- 5 -\nAmerican Legion\nI know you have probably heard about our tax limit plan and I will\nnot belabor you with all the details today.\nIt includes a 20 percent one time rebate in state income taxes and\nan ongoing 7½ percent income tax reduction after it is adopted.\nBy putting this revenue limit in effect, in five years, there could\nbe another 25 percent reduction in income taxes. In 10 years the cut\ncould be another 60 percent, or the sales tax could be reduced by a\nthird\nfrom 6 to 4 cents.\nIt will still provide ample money for government's legitimate\nfunctions to expand. In 10 years, the budget could triple from $9 to\n$27 billion, and spending for education, for mental health, for all the\nvital functions of government could also go up at the same pace.\nBut there would be a big difference between the system we have now,\na system in which government literally has a blank check in the matter\nof taxes. And when they issue that check, it is drawn on your account,\nin the form of higher taxes.\nWe do not believe this can go on. Somewhere, someplace, someone\nhas to draw the line against excessive government spending and all the\nwasteful practices that are inherent in allowing blank check financing.\nCalifornia is the place to draw the line. We can meet all of the\nlegitimate needs of government without bankrupting the people; we can\nhave an orderly growth in the budget for essential programs and at the\nsame time we can be planning for tax reductions instead of tax increases.\nThat is what our tax limit program is designed to accomplish. It\nwas drafted by a task force that had the help of some of this country's\nmost distinguished economists.\nIt can be a major step in bringing to a halt the constant need for\nhigher taxes. Putting a reasonable ceiling on the amount of your\nincome that government can take is the only way to restore a stable tax\nstructure. By doing so, California will be taking a major step toward\nhelping America slow down inflation.\nIn 15 years, this program will leave more than $118 billion in the\npockets of the people who earned it rather than having that staggering\namount of money taken out of the economy in non-productive taxes.\nIf people spend this money for their own needs, their own\npriorities, it will provide a massive boost to our economy, it will\nstimulate investments and jobs and a more stable economic climate. If\ngovernment takes it, all those problems will be aggravated.\n- 6 -\nAmerican Legion\nThat is why we are giving this program our highest priority. That\nis why we are going to the people for a decision. We believe they have\na right to vote on it, to tell government that there is a limit to what\nour people must pay in taxes.\nYou will be hearing a lot about this in the months ahead. All that\nI ask is that you study our proposal, and consider the alternative that\nthe critics offer: the same unlimited, blank check financing that\ngovernment has had up to now. It is because there have been no fiscal\nrestraints that government costs have grown so steeply in the past two\ngenerations. If this trend continues, we may never be able to cope with\ninflation or any of the other economic difficulties we face.\nI cannot believe that America is doomed to follow the path of other\nnations that have fallen into internal decay.\nI cannot believe that our people lack the self-discipline to face\nup to the economic necessity of bringing both inflation and excessive\ngovernment spending under some degree of reasonable control.\nThe people of America and the people of California are made of\nsterner stuff. They built this country, made it prosperous and they have\nprotected it through 200 years of periodic war and crisis.\nSurely, in this time of affluence and prosperity, we can take the\nsteps necessary to maintain that prosperity.\nRegardless of what others do, California has an opportunity to do\nsomething constructive to restore economic stability, by reducing taxes.\nAnd with the help of those of you who share our views, we are going to\ntry to do it.\n######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes).\n- 7 -\n6\n6/25\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: MONDAY P.Ms.\nSacramento, California 95814\nJUNE 25, 1973\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-22-73\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nGOVERNOR'S SYMPOSIUM ON TRANSPORTATION\nLos Angeles\nJune 25, 1973\nFirst, let me say I am delighted to see all of you here today. You\nhave already heard from Frank Walton and Jim Moe the purpose of our\nmeeting. It is to acquaint you with the operations of the new unified\nDepartment of Transportation just getting under way. And it will, we\nhope, open up lines of communications which will enable all of us to\ncarry out a difficult and challenging assignment in the years ahead\nplanning for and solving California's need for an efficient and well\nbalanced total system of transportation.\nThe subject is one of vital concern to every citizen of California.\nI know you will be hearing from many experts here today. And I know\ntoo that everyone here is very familiar with the important role of\ntransportation in our society.\nBut I would like to sketch for you in a general way the dimensions\nof the challenge we face during the years ahead. And I would like to\ntell you just a little about the things we are doing and still must do\nto meet that challenge.\nI realize there are those who are quite pessimistic about the\nprospect of ever solving the myriad of problems associated with the kind\nof massive transportation systems we have now and must develop in the\nfuture. When you hear some of the dire forecasts, it does sound a bit\nlike trying to bail out the Queen Mary with a leaky bucket.\nBut, I am not one of the pessimists. Those who would just give up,\nor who advocate extreme and impractical solutions that could seriously\ndamage our economy, are underestimating the enormous reservoir of talent,\ningenuity and vision we have here in California.\nSome of the things we have already accomplished in the field of\ntransportation are miracles of progress, on a scale undreamed of in other\ncountries and in most other states.\nEver since the first settlers arrived on horseback and covered\nwagon, California has been developing a fantastically efficient and\nvaried system of transportation.\n- 1 -\nTransportation Symposium\nOur oldest highway, El Camino Real, first laid out along its present\nroute more than 200 years ago by the early missionaries, is a symbol of\nthe progress that transportation has meant to the people of California.\nThat early roadway has now grown into a vast transportation corridor,\nstretching today between San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco,\nurban areas where more than 15 million of our people live and work.\nIt is one of the busiest transportation networks in the world.\nMore passengers fly between Los Angeles and San Francisco every year\nthan between any two other cities in the world. And air travel is only\npart of this vast structure.\nThe movement of goods and people back and forth along the rail\nlines, sea lanes, freeways and pipelines in this corridor have helped\nCalifornia become the world's seventh largest economy.\nBetween those cities I have named virtually every type of economic\nactivity known in the state takes place, everything from the making of\nheavy industrial products to the harvesting of artichokes, the operation\nof massive research and educational institutions and the functioning of\nvast centers of commerce, finance, entertainment, and recreation.\nThis giant network and the many other important links in our\noverall transportation system are absolutely vital to the prosperity of\nour state and the convenience of our people. All of the commercial\nactivities I have mentioned depend on an efficient transportation to\nfunction properly, to move goods from the farms and factories to market,\nto enable our people to get to work and back again safely and convenienty.\nCalifornia has almost 15 million vehicles of all kinds including\n12-1/2 million cars and trucks operating every day along a 16,000 mile\nhighway system under the state's jurisdiction. And by 1990, we must be\nprepared to accommodate a projected 20 million vehicles.\nEvery 24 hours, more than 80,000 people fly somewhere aboard the\nscores of commercial airlines which serve California, including 56,000\npeople traveling in and out of our state on flights going to or coming\nfrom the major cities of America and the world.\nHundreds of thousands of other people use our urban and commuter\nrail and bus and rapid transit systems. Along with all this, there is a\nconstant stream of rail and sea traffic serving both passengers and the\nfreight and cargo shipping needs of our industries, our farms and our\nbusinesses.\n- 2 -\nTransportation Symposium\nKeeping this system operating at peak efficiency, with maximum\nconcern for environmental protection and the safety of those who use it,\nis one of the major responsibilities of government at all levels.\nThe modern transport system we have in California has evolved over\nthe years to meet our changing needs. And since we have been in\nSacramento, our major goal has been to improve that system, to anticipate\nthe changes necessary and to take the steps necessary to make those\nchanges efficiently and at the least possible cost.\nSince 1967, we have built 1,472 miles of freeway and 125 miles of\nexpressway. The total mileage of the state highway system has increased\nby 800 miles.\nAt the same time, we have recognized the need to make our roads\nand highways compatible with the natural environment and as safe as\nmodern engineering practices can make them.\nOne of our first major efforts in 1967 was to appoint a task force\nof professionals in the transportation field. We gave them the task of\ndefining the state's role in transportation planning and asked them to\nrecommend the organizational structure that would best enable us to plan\nfor and meet California's transportation needs in the future.\nOur unified Department of Transportation is the result.\nOur people must have a variety of transportation choices to meet\ntheir varied needs, a total network that offers flexibility and comfort\nas well as economy, swift movement as well as convenience.\nMoving people within our great urban areas requires one particular\ncombination of transportation facilities. Longer trips between cities,\nfreight and cargo hauling, call for a different combination. And to get\npeople to and from recreational areas quickly and conveniently involves\ndifferent and totally separate transportation needs. It will be the goal\nof the Department of Transportation to develop, with your help, a\nlogical efficient and economical arrangement of the various trans-\nportation networks we need to serve all the people and the businesses\nand industries which employ them and make possible a modern and\nprosperous society.\nMany of the other recommendations made by our task force and\nimplemented earlier are part of the administrative structure we will\nneed to carry forward our transportation planning.\nThe California Transportation Board, established in 1970 and now\nheaded by Richard Brown, serves as the key policy making body in\ncomprehensive transportation planning.\n- 3 -\nTransportation Symposium\nWe must and shall continue to develop and improve the state Highway\nSystem because the automobile is the dominant means of transportation for\nmost of our cities. And it will remain the major mode of transportation\nin the years ahead, even while we are developing alternatives.\nWe recognize that alternatives are needed, that any modern\ntransportation system, particularly that serving great metropolitan\nareas, must include a proper balance of transportation choices. That\nmeans developing and encouraging better and more efficient means of\nrapid mass transit.\nThe Bay Area Rapid Transit system is now getting under way. Tolls\nfrom San Francisco area bridges are helping finance BART's under the Bay\ntube connecting San Francisco and Oakland. We have reduced the tolls\nfor commuter buses on eight state-owned toll bridges and established\nreserved bus lanes on the Golden Gate bridge to help encourage a greater\nuse of this form of mass transit.\nIn the Los Angeles area, an 11-mile express busway is now under\nconstruction along the San Bernardino Freeway, and about 7 miles of this\nare already in use. This new bus route connects the Los Angeles central\nbusiness district with cities to the east and the project also provides\na major test of the effectiveness of a combined transportation link,\nutilizing rail, auto and bus transportation on a single facility.\nAir transport and aeronautics is an increasingly vital element in\nboth passenger and freight service. The state has recognized this by\nstarting to develop a statewide master plan to coordinate this phase of\nour transportation needs.\nBecause of sheer numbers involved, automobile traffic safety has\nbeen one of our primary concerns. And we have made remarkable progress\nin reducing the slaughter on the highways.\nThe overall fatality rate on California's highways has declined from\n5.0 in 1966 to 3.6 per 100 million vehicle miles in 1971. It was 3.9 last\nyear, but we are determined to get back to the lower figure in 1973.\nTranslating that statistic into terms we can all understand, that means\nover these past six years, 5,103 lives have been saved.\nWe have doubled the manpower strength of the Highway Patrol, enabling\ncities to devote their own law enforcement personnel to crime fighting.\nWe have adopted stringent laws to crack down on the drunk drivers who\ncause so many of the fatal accidents on our highways. And we have applied\nthe latest and most sophisticated engineering techniques to eliminate the\ndangerous road and highway hazards which cause injury and death.\n- 4 -\nTransportation Symposium\nWe can all be pleased with these results. But we must never allow\nour success to lull us into thinking that the job is complete. It can\nnever be complete. One traffic or pedestrian death is one too many.\nTo focus attention on the continuing need for utilizing every means\nat our command to further reduce traffic casualties, I am designating the\nweek of September 24 through September 30, 1973 as California Traffic\nSafety Week. And I have asked the Business and Transportation Agency,\nthrough the Office of Traffic Safety, to coordinate this joint effort.\nTo be successful, it will require the cooperation of all---the state,\nlocal government, community action groups and those private sector groups\nwhich have and are still doing so much to help educate our people on the\nconstant need for traffic safety. This includes the California Traffic\nSafety Foundation, the California Association of Women Highway Safety\nLeaders, all automobile clubs and similar organizations.\nThe campaign must be a continuing one, carried on as long as\nnecessary to cut to the absolute minimum the anguish, suffering and the\neconomic loss that results from unnecessary accidents.\nTraffic safety, like the planning necessary for our total\ntransportation system, is a job that requires the best efforts of all\nof us.\nThe area transportation districts which many of you represent provide\nthe means of carrying out one of the other major recommendations of our\ntransportation task force: maximum participation of local government and\nlocal people in transportation planning.\nOf all the services that government provides for the people,\ntransportation is one that must recognize local needs and local sentiment.\nYet in this field, as with many other governmental functions, there\nis too often a tendency to look to Washington for the answers. The\nproblem of moving commuters in and around Los Angeles or any other local\narea cannot be effectively solved in Washington. And the people\nrecognize this. A recent national poll indicates that two thirds of our\npeople believe transportation decisions should be made at the state and\nlocal level.\nIt will be the purpose of the Department of Transportation to help\nassure that California's transportation needs are solved through the\ngreatest possible coordination and cooperation between all levels of\ngovernment. And these solutions must include the desires of the people\nmost affected at the local level.\n- 5 -\nTransportation Symposium\nThe department's task will be:\n--to resolve the differences that may exist or develop about the\nvarious transportation alternatives available to us;\n--to eliminate fragmentation in transportation planning and provide\na more efficient, unified approach to our transportation problems in all\nareas and involving all modes of moving people and goods;\n--to hear and resolve, on a logical and fair basis, the legitimate\nconcerns our people have about the impact of transportation facilities\nand rights-of-way on our environment.\nWe already have the basic working elements of the transportation\nsystem we will have in the future, the planes, automobiles, trucks,\ntrains, buses, ships and harbors and the rapid transit cars. We also\nhave the technical capacity to improve on all these elements, to provide\nboth a better network of transportation and a mix of systems plus\ntechnological improvements that will help us reduce air noise and\nenvironmental pollution.\nWhat we need to develop in the years ahead is a way to take these\nvarious sytems and coordinate them into an efficient and interrelated\ntransportation network.\nThis will be the department's goal, to determine whether all the\nvarious elements of our present and planned transportation network are\nbeing developed properly, in the right places, to serve the people in\nvarious areas and the overall transport needs of the state.\nTo give the proper direction to the different areas of\ntransportation, the department will have a Division of Highways, the\nDivision of Aeronautics and the Division of Mass Transportation.\nAnd to coordinate the work of these departments, there will be a\nDivision of Transportation Planning. Its prime function will be to make\nsure that whatever facilities we add will all mesh together to provide\nthe most efficient and balanced transportation system possible.\nWe know that will require planning, but we want it to be logical,\nrealistic, and sensible. We sure don't want to be like the Soviet\narchitect who designed a 12-story apartment house and forgot to put in\nthe elevators. They gave him the worst punishment they could think of---\nhe was condemned to live in an apartment on the 12th floor.\nThose of you here today will play a vital role in helping us make\nthe many choices that must be made in local areas of the state, what\ntype of transportation mix will be most efficient for any given area,\nwhere the facilities should be located and how to accomplish all this\nwith a minimum of disruption of the environment and maximum attention to\nthe needs and desires of the people who live where these facilities will\nbe located.\n- 6 -\nTransportation Symposium\nWe know there will be many problems. Our meeting today comes\nduring a time when there is a convergence of many trends and developments\nwhich will have a bearing on the work ahead.\nWe are committed to protecting the environment against unnecessary\nencroachment, reducing smog, and noise pollution and minimizing the\nadverse impact of our transportation system on the overall environment.\nYet we cannot forget the positive and essential beneficial impact that\nan efficient transportation network has on the total environment of the\npeople. It is necessary for the orderly functioning of our economy and\nfor the convenience of the people.\nSo there. will be a need for cooperation, for understanding and\ncompromise.\nThe energy crisis, which has suddenly become a matter of urgent\nconcern, makes our job that much more difficult. The United States uses\nabout 161/2 million barrels of oil every day, about 3½ gallons for every\nman, woman and child. Yet our domestic resources supply only about 70\npercent of this. The remainder about 30 percent is imported. In\n1960, our proven domestic reserves of crude oil amounted to about 12½½\ntimes our annual production of petroleum and oil. Last year, the amount\nof proven oil in the ground was down to less than nine times our annual\noil output.\nThis means that we face some difficult choices in the years ahead.\nCertainly we must do all we can to protect the environment. But we\ncannot stop drilling for oil everywhere, we must permit our oil and\npetroleum industry to explore and expand our oil reserves. This is not\nsimply a matter of convenience for the average motorist, although that\nis a legitimate goal in itself.\nWe simply cannot afford to become overly dependent on foreign\nsources of oil because in a time of crisis or war, those sources would\nnot be available. Western Europe learned that lesson during the Suez\ncrisis. And one result of that experience has been the wide-ranging\neffort to develop new oil sources closer to home, in the North Sea and\nelsewhere. A modern economy cannot operate without sufficient energy\nsupplies. And until technology provides us with other alternatives, we\nmust make sure that America has the oil it needs to protect both our\nprosperity and our freedom.\n- 7 -\nTransportation Symposium\nNor can we adopt extreme measures that could paralyze our economy.\nThe proposal that would virtually ban automobile traffic in the Los\nAngeles area by 1977 may possibly have upset many people. Well, it is\nmy understanding that this is just that, a preliminary proposal. It\nemphasizes the need for action. Yet we all know a total ban on cars\nwould be an economic disaster and I am quite sure that is not what\nCongress intended. We must work together to develop more feasible\nalternatives that can reduce and eliminate smog without doing away with\nprivate automobile travel.\nFrankly, I have always felt that the ultimate answer lies in\ntechnology, the development of alternate power sources or technical\nrefinements. Industry should be encouraged and assisted in their efforts\nto eliminate smog on the assembly line rather than attempting to solve\nthe problem after the cars and trucks are on the roads and streets.\nWhen I mentioned the problems we face, I saved the big one for last.\nAnd you all know what it is: money. The United States Department of\nTransportation estimates the cost of meeting all of California's\ntransportation needs between now and 1990 at $60 billion. That includes\npublic transportation, highways, streets, roads and air travel facilities\nWe will need $40 billion to maintain, improve and expand our network\nof highways, streets and roads, $15 billion for mass transportation\nsystems and $5 billion for air facilities.\nYet, the dollars we have available for transportation are limited,\nbecause of other essential needs and the need to keep from piling\nadditional taxes on our people.\nBecause California has more people and vehicles than any other\nstate, we have been a principal contributor to the federal highway fund.\nWe\nare in the jargon of government \"a donor state.\" We send about\n$200 million more a year to Washington than we get back for our own\ntransportation needs.\nSo the new Department of Transportation, under Jim Moe, has a big\njob cut out for it in the area of financing. They will serve as the\nprincipal advocate for obtaining a greater return of the highway funds\nCalifornia sends to Washington so that we can maintain and improve the\nhighway system that generates this tax revenue.\n- 8 -\nTransportation Symposium\nThey will also be giving a high priority to meeting the urban\ntransportation needs of areas such as Los Angeles and other cities. In\nthis, we plan to work closely with local officials. Together, I believe\nwe can take the steps necessary to develop logical and realistic ways\nof meeting our urban mass transit needs.\nAll of this, I know, may sound beyond reach. Yet our people have\nnever been intimidated or even long deferred by ambitious plans or\nmassive problems.\nA week ago, I told the U.S. Conference of Mayors that I believe we\nhave the talent and the capacity to solve whatever problems we face,\nin the cities or the states. If we can land a man on the moon, develop\nspace ships that can travel to other planets, getting people to the\nshopping center or between cities swiftly, safely and conveniently is\ncertainly not an impossible dream.\nSure, it will take a lot of work, some sweat---and just possibly\na few arguments here and there---but I believe it can be done. And we\nhave the most basic ingredient for success man has ever known: we will\ndo it because we have to do it.\n######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes).\n- 9 -\n#:\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: WEDNESDAY P.Ms.\nSacramento, California 95814\nAugust 1, 1973\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\n916-445-4571\n7-31-73\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nCITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS\nLos Angeles\nAugust 1, 1973\nYou wouldn't be here today if you didn't agree with many others\nthat the scales of justice have been tilted out of balance in recent years\nfor a variety of reasons. We are all concerned with a legal and criminal\njustice system that is fair to society and protects the rights of the law\nabiding as well as assuring justice for accused lawbreakers.\nThe result of this imbalance is clearly evident in the sharply\nincreased levels of crime over the past decade or so, both in California\nand throughout the nation.\nAlthough we have made some progress in slowing down the overall crime\ntotals, criminal activity is perhaps our society's most critical problem.\nA recent poll showed that crime is the number one concern of the people\nin California. And another poll provides the reason why: one out of\nevery three people surveyed said they had within the past year either been\na victim of some crime themselves or knew someone who had been a victim.\nIf it is true that humor is a reflection of society, the crime proble\nhas indeed become a matter of widespread concern, even among people of\ndifferent philosophies. Today's hardliner on law and order is yeaterday\"s\nliberal who was mugged last night.\nBut it is too serious a matter for humor. Crime has become so\npervasive within our society, it is now a dominant factor in the daily\nlives of many citizens. Fear of the mugger inhibits the enjoyment of a\nwalk in the park or a stroll around the neighborhood after dark. Worst\nof all, despite the courageous dedication of our law enforcement officers,\nviolent crime continues to go up. How can this be? Respect for the law\nis deeply rooted in America's culture. Our very system of government is\nbased on the principle of rule by law. The question comes back again\nand again: Why?\nOur police have the most modern crime fighting techniques ever known.\nWe live in the most affluent period in our nation's history. Why does\nthe crime rate continue to go up?\nThe answers cannot be found in sociological explanations as some\nwould have you believe.\n- 1 -\nCitizens Committee\nCertainly, we have had major social upheavals in our society over\nthe past several decades. Great migrations of people, the growth of vast\nmetropolitan areas, the decline of religious faith and ethical values,\nthe advent of the so-called \"New Morality,\" the drug culture and other\nfads plus the simple fact of population growth.\nSome of these things are symptoms, not causes; some can help explain\npart of the increase. But they do not and cannot explain the total\nincrease. In the darkest days of the Great Depression, the crime levels\nwere far lower than they are today or have been for the past decade.\nPoverty and unemployment cannot be blamed for the spread of crime.\nThe answers lie elsewhere, in a variety of trends which have evolved in\nAmerica during the past couple of decades.\nPart of it is sociological, but not quite for the reasons that some\nimply. The increase of crime has come about at the very time when there\nhas been a general acceptance of permissiveness throughout our society\nthe idea that the rule breaker and even the lawbreaker is not accountable\nfor his or her individual acts, or the consequences of those actions.\nInstead, we have been asked to blame \"society,\" economic problems,\ndiscrimination, anything but the individual act of individuals.\nPart of it lies within the legal process itself, the clogged court\ncalendars which delay trials, sometimes for years. Prolonged delay makes\na mockery of the concept of a speedy trial and speedy justice--both for\nthe accused and for the protection of society.\nDuring this golden age of permissiveness, the crime rate has sky-\nrocketed. Instead of coming to grips with the problem, the criminal\njustice system has become part of the problem. Sweeping court rulings\ninvolving the most technical (and yes, the most tortured) interpretation\nof law have made it harder, not easier, for our police to carry out their\nmission of protecting the public.\nSome of these court rulings have had such a devastating result on th\ncrime rate that they can no longer be ignored. Attorney General Evelle\nYounger recently pointed out some startling statistics that emphasize\nthe very problem that brings us together today.\nLast year in California fewer than 1 in 5 convicted heroin pushers\nactually were sentenced to prison.\n--one survey shows that of 1,399 offenders convicted in Superior\nCourt of first degree robbery, 886 did not go to prison.\n--Still another case study reveals that 294 ex-convicts were\nconvicted for possession of a deadly weapon. But of this number, only\n62 went to prison for this new offense.\n- 2\nCitizens Committee\nThe result of this is quite predictable. At the precise time when\nthe crime rate has been going up, the number of convicted offenders\nactually being sent to prison has been going down.\nIn 1971, fewer than 1 in 10 felonies processed through the Superior\nCourt resulted in a prison sentence.\nA study by the Rand Corporation showed that in one court, only\n7 percent of those convicted of one of the seven most serious felonies\nreceived a prison sentence. In another court, in the same judicial\ndistrict, more than half the convictions resulted in a prison sentence.\nThat is unequal justice. But the victim of this inequality is not\nthe guilty offender who did not go to prison for committing the same\ncrimes that caused others to be imprisoned. The real victim in this\nsituation is society itself, the law abiding citizens who rely on the\ncriminal justice system to protect them against the lawbreakers.\nCourt rulings stacked almost entirely on the side of the law breaker,\na lack of uniform sentencing patterns for identical crimes, an over\nreliance on probation and perhaps, a too optimistic view that hardened\ncriminals can be easily rehabilitated; all those things add up to a\nseeming inability, a failure of the criminal justice system to fulfill\nits basic purpose. To most of our people, the purpose of the law and the\ncriminal justice system is clear and simple: it is to protect the\ninnocent and bring the guilty to justice.\nThis does not mean that we have no regard for the Constitutional\nrights we are all sworn to protect. Safeguarding the rights of the\naccused is and must always be a legitimate and critical part of the\njudicial system.\nBut when you talk with people on the street, with frustrated law\nenforcement officers, with prosecutors who see the impact of unreasonable\ncourt rulings every day, even with many judges themselves, there is an\nunmistakable feeling that somehow in our zeal to be progressive and\ncompassionate, the rights of society have been eroded.\nThere is a feeling that some judicial decisions go beyond an\ninterpretation of the law and instead fall into the category of judicial\nlegislating.\nThe layman, unsophisticated in legal terminology, may not be able to\narticulate the fine points of each specific case. But the people clearly\nsee that some court actions are making it far more difficult for law\nenforcement to do its job.\n- 3 -\nCitizens Committee\nAnd they wonder how all these newly discovered legal technicalities\nhave escaped the attention of all the great legal scholars of the past.\nIt is because we share this concern that last year I appointed a\nSelect Committee on Law Enforcement Problems. This morning, this\ncommittee issued its report, possibly the most comprehensive view of\nour criminal justice system ever conducted.\nThey outlined the problems in detail, they talked with citizens,\nwith prosecutors, with judges, with experts in the fields of correction\nand many other aspects of law enforcement and the criminal justice system.\nWhen I appointed this committee, I asked them to look into a number\nof specific areas. The scope of their study and their recommendations\nare far too numerous to outline in our brief time here today.\nBut I would like to emphasize that the basic purpose was this: to\nsee what we at the state level could do to improve the workings of our\ncriminal justice system, to find out where the bottlenecks are and what\nwe can do to unclog the courts and to otherwise streamline the criminal\njustice system. We want to take whatever action is necessary to make our\ncriminal justice system function more efficiently and more forcefully in\ndealing with the problem of crime in California.\nThey made a number of recommendations. Some of them already are\nincorporated in legislation awaiting action now in Sacramento. Others\nrequire executive department changes and administrative reorganizations\nand local government action. And some may even require constitutional\namendments.\nWe are going to take a good look at each of them and see if we can\nimplement every one that holds forth a promise of stemming the crime rate\nin California.\nAs most of you are aware, one of the obstacles we have faced trying\nto tighten up law enforcement these past 6½ years is the fact that for\nonly a brief period did we enjoy the support of a legislative majority\nthat shared our belief about government's duty to protect the law abiding.\nIn that brief period, we succeeded in passing the most sifnificant\nanti-crime legislation of the past decade.\n--We passed a law cracking down on drunk driving, a factor in more\nthan 35 percent of all fatal traffic accidents, Since then, there has\nbeen a tremendous increase in the number of arrests for drunk driving\n(it is part of the overall increase in the crimestatistics). But these\ntougher laws are having an impact. We have had an overall reduction in\nthe traffic death rate.\n- 4 -\nCitizens Committee\n--We tightened up penalties for drug related offenses. We passed\nand are now implementing the nation's most comprehensive inventory\ncontrol program on dangerous drugs. The goal is to prevent legitimate\ndrugs from being diverted into illicit channels where they could\ncontribute to the crime problem in California.\n--And we enacted the first anti-pornography laws to be passed in\nCalifornia in 8 years. Although court challenges have held up enforcement\nof these laws, the recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court may at last\nmake it possible for each community to establish its own standards of\ndecency. Unless they find another technicality that hangs the matter up\nin court for another few years, it should be possible for every community\nto crack down on smut. That is what our laws were intended to do.\nBut we were not able to do all that we would like to do or all\nthat we know must be done to combat crime.\nWe are still sponsoring just as many laws to fight crime, but we\nare running into the same old bottlenecks, key committees controlled by\na legislative majority which---by its actions has demonstrated that it\nis hostile to effective crime legislation.\nA year ago, the people of California passed a constitutional\namendment to reinstate capital punishment as the ultimate deterrent to\nmurder and other violent crimes. The vote was more than 2 to 1. In my\nState-of-the-State message this year, I asked the legislature to carry out\nthis clear and unmistakable mandate.\nA bill to restore capital punishment was submitted to the legislature\nearly this year. It was carefully drawn to conform to the U.S. Supreme\nCourt guidelines.\nIt is still bottled up in committee. We do not really expect the\nopponents of capital punishment to see the light. If they are ever to be\nmoved on this measure, it will have to be because they feel the heat of\npublic opinion.\nWhenever one speaks of capital punishment, there is a dangerof being\ncast as a zealot, waving the bloody shirt. And I am fully aware that many\ncitizens honestly oppose capital punishment on moral grounds or because\nof their own compassionate views. I respect their opinions. They are\nentitled to express them and to seek to convince others of the validity\nof their belief.\nBut a majority of our citizens strongly believe that capital\npunishment is a deterrent to crime. And I cannot help but draw some\ndegree of significance from the fact that during the time we have had an\nalmost total moritorium on capital punishment, the rate of violent crime\nhas escalated steadily.\n- 5 -\nCitizens Committee\nIn fact, it might be said that this issue, more than any other, is\na signal to the criminal element of just how determined society is to\nprotect itself.\nWhen a law breaker can kill without facing the prospect of the\nultimate penalty, when most convicted criminals know that they probably\nwill not wind up in prison, we cannot say we have effective deterrents\nto even more criminal activity.\nThe committee recommended that the state adopt and enforce a clear\nstate policy that criminals who use firearms in committing a crime\nshould go to jail.\nThe committee recommended state assistance to help local law\nenforcement officials improve and finance mutual aid programs to control\nriots or other mass disturbances or disasters. We have a bill in the\nlegislature to accomplish this.\nThe legislature has also been asked to tighten up our juvenile crime\nlaws, particularly since the age of adulthood has now been reduced to 18.\nWith their many other recommendations, the committee proposed that\nthe state abolish the so-called \"exclusionary rule\" and instead adopt a\nsubstitute that would allow the victims of illegal search and seizures to\nrecover damages, but would not result in suppressing evidence that might\notherwise convict a guilty offender. More than any other single court\ndecision, the \"exclusionary rule\" has had the most devastating impact on\neffective law enforcement.\nI know many of you are familiar with it and how it has frustrated\nthe goal of justice. For those who are not, the exclusionary rule is a\nconstitutional interpretation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S.\nConstitution and Article 1, Section 19 of the state Constitution. It\nprovides that if a law enforcement officer obtains evidence of a crime by\nwhat a court later decides was an unreasonable search or seizure, that\nevidence cannot be admitted in court and cannot be considered in trying\nto determine a defendant's guilt.\nIt was not proposed specifically by any language placed within the\nstate or U.S. Constitutions. Nor was it adopted by Congress or a\nlegislature. It was created by judicial decision.\nIt was first adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court for federal courts in\n1914 and in 1955 the Supreme Court of California extended it to include\nCalifornia courts. The U.S. Supreme Court applied the \"exclusionary rule\"\nto all the states in 1961.\n- 6 -\nCitizens Committee\nFrom the time of its enactment, it has been a subject of controversy\nand dispute by some of America's greatest legal minds.\nIt also has been applied in cases that border on the ridiculous\ninterpretations of law that would be humorous if they did not involve\nserious crime, or did not complicate the very serious business of fighting\ncrime in California and throughout the country.\nOne newspaper columnist described the \"exclusionary rule\" as meaning\nthe murder weapon cannot be introduced into evidence unless the search\nwarrant the police used to recover it was wrapped up in a neat red ribbon\nThat may sound exaggerated. But not when you examine some of the\nspecific cases that involve the \"exclusionary rule.\"\nThere was the so-called \"trash barrel\" decision, which in effect\nheld that the Constitutional shield against unreasonable search and\nseizure extends to the trash barrel in the street.\nIn this case, the police had received a tip that some persons were\nengaged in illegal narcotics activities. The officers located the\nresidence and when they arrived, they saw several trash barrels awaiting\npickup. They asked the garbage collectors to pick up the cans in front\nof the suspected house and empty them. The officers found 5 paper sacks\ncontaining marijuana debris and seeds and six partially burned marijuana\ncigarettes. Later, they found additional marijuana inside the house.\nBut this evidence was suppressed on the grounds that it\nrepresented an unlawful search and seizure. That ruling was confirmed\nby the state Supreme Court and just recently it was upheld by the U.S.\nSupreme Court.\nIn case after case, police find evidence excluded from court because\nof this rule, even though there is a dispute among legal scholars whether\nit is valid, and even when judges themselves cannot decide what\nconstitutes reasonable search and seizure.\nAlmost 50 years ago, the chief justice of the New York Court of\nAppeal (Justice Cardozo) strongly disagreed with the principle involved\nin the \"exclusionary rule.\"\nThe impact, he said, means that \"the criminal is to go free because\nthe constable has blundered, a room is searched against the law, and the\nbody of a murdered man is found, the privacy of the home has been\ninfringed, and the murdered goes free.\"\nIn a more recent opinion, Chief Justice Burger of the U.S. Supreme\nCourt strongly dissented in an \"exclusionary rule case.\" He said:\n- 7 -\nCitizens Committee\n\"Suppressing unchallenged truth has set guilty criminals free, but\ndemonstratable has neither deterred deliberate violations of the Fourth\nAmendment nor decreased those errors in judgment which will inevitably\noccur given the pressures inherent in police work having to do with\nserious crimes.\"\nIn another case, he said he could not find the slightest\nConstitutional basis to reverse a conviction. \"The court reaches out,\nstrains and distorts rules which were showing some signs of stabilizing,\nand directs a new trial which will be held more than seven years after\nthe criminal acts charged.\"\nThe interpretation which results in these misapplications of the\n\"exclusionary rule\" is unique to American justice. Although the British\nand Canadian systems of justice have the same common heritage in law,\nneither allows valid evidence to be suppressed in a way that permits\nguilty criminals to go free.\nThe Select Committee found the \"exclusionary rule to be one of the\ngreatest inhibiting factors in achieving more effective law enforcement.\nAnd they recommend that California adopt a substitute that would better\nserve the cause of justice.\nMany legal scholars have made the same suggestion. Chief Justice\nBurger, who advocates adopting a substitutue, says \"the experience of over\nhalf a century has shown (that the 'exclusionary rule') neither deters\nerrant officers nor affords a remedy to the totally innocent victims\nof official misconduct.\"\nOur committee proposed that the public entity employing the policemen\nbe made liable for ordinary damages plus attorney's fees for any unlawful\nsearches and seizures by law enforcement officers. In this way, the law\nwould provide an effective means of redress for the victims of unlawful\nsearches. But it would not be at the cost of suppressing evidence\nnecessary to bring the guilty to justice.\nIn the finaly analysis, the primary purpose of the trial, the whole\nreason for a court and a legal system, is to determine the truth.\nWhen valid evidence is suppressed, the truth is mocked. And\ninjustice is the result.\nWe must find ways of re-establishing the court as a citadel of truth.\nSo we have asked the legislature to adopt a substitute for the\n\"exclusionary rule,\" a step advocated by many legal scholars as the most\neffective remedy for this bottleneck to justice.\n- 8 -\nCitizens Committee\nThe recommendations of the Select Committee and other reforms in\nour prison system and our parole and probation policy are part of our\neffort to assure that the criminal justice system regains an ability to\nfunction effectively for the protection of the people.\nAt the same time, we are seeking reforms that assure a compassionate\napproach to first time offenders, to the casual lawbreaker who can be\nrehabilitated. But we also must recognize that rehabilitation is not\nsomething that can be accomplished easily. It requires most of all,\nthe cooperation of the offenders themselves. If the individual offender\nlacks a desire to become again a useful and productive citizen of society\nit is unlikely that any prison rehabilitation program can succeed,\nhowever well intended it may be.\nFinally, we must recognize that preserving and protecting a lawful\nsociety is a responsibility of every citizen. The law cannot assure\njustice unless a majority of our people are willing to accept the rule\nof law, not because a police car is patrolling nearby, but because it\nis morally right.\nWith freedom goes responsibility. Sir Winston Churchill once said\nyou can have 10,000 regulations and still not have respect for law. We\nmight start with the 10 Commandments. If we lived by the Golden Rule,\nthere would be no need for other laws.\nBut men have not reached that degree of enlightened moral\nresponsibility. We know there is a criminal element that will challenge\nour legal system. And we know that our system of criminal justice must\nalways be prepared to vigorously act to protect society. There can be\nno compromise with chronic, deliberate lawlessness,\nAlmost 150 years ago, the French traveler Alexis de Tocqueville\nsaid: \"Justice is the end of government, it has ever been and ever will\nbe pursued, until it either will be obtained or until liberty be lost in\nthe pursuit.\"\nIt is our job to pursue justice for everyone until it is obtained\nand secured. To do this, we know we will need the help of groups such as\nyours, people who are concerned enough about crime to do something\nabout it.\n######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes).\n- 9 -\nthe\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: TUESDAY A.Ms.\nSacramento, California 95814\nAUGUST 7, 1973\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\n916-445-4571\n8-6-73\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nCOMSTOCK CLUB, WOODLAKE INN, SACRAMENTO\nAugust 6, 1973\nSince your club was founded, I know you have heard from some of the\nnation's most distinguished leaders, in a wide variety of fields. I am\ngreatly honored to be your 200th speaker even though some might interpret\nthis to mean you have reached the bottom of the barrel.\nThe name you selected for your club Comstock evokes an image of\nSacramento's long and rich history: the western terminus of the Pony\nExpress and the collecting point for the gold flowing out of the Mother\nLode Country.\nThat has not changed too much. It is still a collecting point and\nthe home of big spenders--of someone else's money.\nNancy and I mulepacked into the High Sierras a few weeks ago. We\nthought it might be nice to really get away from it all. The rocky trail\nand all those mules---it really was not that much of a change.\nSeriously, it is a pleasure to meet with you who represent a cross\nsection of this city's leadership. Sacramento is the capitol of the\nnation's largest state and you who live and work here are uniquely\nimportant.\nWhat happens here has an impact onthe rest of the nation and\nsometimes on the rest of the world. We have become a mirror of the\nfuture and whether we like it or not, we all have a part in shaping the\nfuture.\nCalifornia has led the nation in sophisticated technology, in finding\nnew ways to build better products, to create a more prosperous economy,\nand to provide greater opportunities for more and more people to share\nin that prosperity.\nMuch of the technology that makes America the world leader in\ncomputers was developed in California. For many years, we have been\nAmerica's number one agricultural state and we pioneered most of the\nadvanced farming methods. The Eastern cynicism that California is a\ngood place to be if you are an orange is no longer heard. Others now\nlook on California with both envy and awe.\nIt is true, however, that with material achievement have come\nproblems. We were the first to discover and name smog. We were also\nthe first to launch an effort to eliminate it.\n- 1 -\nComstock Club\nWe have become first in population and again found an accompanying\nincrease in problems. Problems affecting the environment and massive\nnew demands for such things as parks and recreational areas. These\nproblems are being solved more effectively than many of our people\nrealize.\nWe are living in a momentous era of economic change. California's\ngreat agricultural production is a tremendous economic asset. For too\nmany decades, government policies born of the great depression continued\nto 100k upon the ability of our farmers to produce as a problem. Today,\nin an increasingly hungry world, we know it is an opportunity.\nLast year, agricultural production brought in more than $5 billion\nin California. And when the impact of this production ripples through\nthe state's economy, in canning, processing, shipping and all the other\nways in which a farm or ranch produced dollar multiplies, it means that\nagriculture accounted for about $25 billion of the total California\neconomy in 1972.\nThe same is true of many other California based industries, producin\nall manner of raw materials and industrial goods.\nProsperity is something created by people and their industries and\nbusiness for which government takes credit. There are always those who\ninsist government must keep pace with our free society by increasing in\nsize, in cost and ultimately and inevitably in power. It will not come\nas a shock to you, I am sure, to hear that even though I am a part of\ngovernment, I disagree.\nGovernment must keep pace with the changing needs of our state and\nits people to be sure that government can fulfill its legitimate\nobligations.\nBut if our people are to enjoy the real income gains they have\nearned, government must not create inflation or siphon their increased\nearnings into government coffers.\nGovernment has an inborn tendency to grow. And, left to itself, it\nwill grow beyond the control of the people. Only constant complaint by\nthe people will inhibit this growth.\nAnd that means citizen participation in government to a greater\nextent than we have had in recent decades. This means more than just\nvoting or writing letters to representatives. This means men and women\nof stature and achievement being willing to \"do time\" in government,\ntaking leave from their careers and business to hold elective and\nappointed positions in government.\nComstock Club\nMost of you have heard me tell how in our first few months in\nSacramento, we organized the businessman's task force on efficiency and\neconomy. Indeed, some of you participated and your recommendations and\nmanagerial skill helped restore this state to fiscal solvency.\nWe turned again to the citizenry when it became evident that\ngovernment alone could not or would not deal with the problem of runaway\nwelfare that actually posed the threat of bankruptcy.\nA little more than two years ago, we were adding 40,000 people a\nmonth to the welfare rolls and the cost was going up three times as fast\nas state revenues. We were spread so thin, we were not able to properly\nprovide for the truly needy, those who through no fault of their own had\nto depend on us.\nOur task force drafted a program of reform and redirection that\nbecame the most comprehensive overhaul of welfare ever undertaken\nanywhere. We began implementation not without great opposition\ntwo\nyears ago last March.\nThere are today 352,000 fewer people on welfare. We have increased\nthe benefits for the needy by 30 percent, provided cost of living\nadjustments for the blind and the disabled, and developed a work program\nfor able-bodied welfare recipients, to eliminate the demeaning dead end\nthat welfare had come to mean for those who could become productive and\nparticipating citizens in our economy and our society. And we have an\n$826 million surplus in the treasury.\nSome of those responsible for the reforms have been asked by the\nfederal government to institute similar reforms in the other 49 states.\nLast year, we launched another task force effort to study the maze\nof government that has come into being below the state level in California\nthousands of special districts, hundreds of cities and 58 counties, all\nwith taxing power.\nIt is time to take an inventory, to survey the whole structure to\nsee if it can be streamlined and made more efficient and less costly.\nDuring the past decade or so, the crime rate has grown beyond any\npossible reconciliation with population growth or other factors that might\ncause increase. The truth is, some of the changes that have taken place\nin our society have been for the worse, not for the better. Too many\npeople have tried to excuse lawlessness on sociological or economic\ngrounds, ignoring the fact that our system of justice is based on the\nconcept that the individual is accountable for his or her actions.\nJudicial rulings that handicap the prosecutors and the police, crowded\ncourt calendars, well intended but ineffective concepts of probation and\nparole, all those things have contributed to the problems involving public\nsafety.\nComstock Club\nAgain we turned to the people and put a task force to work. Last\nweek, they issued their report covering the whole spectrum of law\nenforcement and the criminal justice system, everything from instituting\nuniform crime reports, to mandatory prison sentences for narcotics\npushers and those who use a firearm in committing a crime. The goal is\nto do whatever is needed to give law enforcement and the criminal justice\nsystem the tools it takes to attack and reduce crime in every city and\nneighborhood in California.\nI am sure I will get no argument if I say the cost of living is too\nhigh. I am getting an argument, however, for saying taxes are too high,\nthat the best thing government can do to fight inflation is to let the\npeople keep more of their own money.\nReducing the percentage that government takes out of the private\nsector is the best service government can perform for the people.\nI hope you have noticed that in each of these accomplishments of\ngovernment, they were achieved by turning to the people. Once again, we\nhave turned to the private sector, to experts outside the formal\nstructure of government, to find an effective way to reduce taxes and\nstill meet the essential needs of the people. Again, a task force was\ncreated.\nWe consulted some of the finest economists in the country and they\nand the task force worked for many months. The result is the Tax Limit\nand Tax Reduction plan that Californians will vote on November 6.\nThey confirmed what most people have suspected. The total tax load\nhas tripled in the past two generations in America. In 1930, the federal\nbudget was only a fraction of the gross national product. Today it is\n25 percent. In 1930, all government revenues federal, state, and\nlocal amounted to only 15 percent of the national income. Today, total\ngovernment revenues federal, state, and local amount to 44.7 percent\nof every income dollar.\nAnd unless we do something to reverse that trend, it will be more\nthan 54 cents in 15 short years. Government is the biggest single cost\nitem in the family budget. Right now, it costs the average citizen more\nthan he spends for food, clothing and housing for his entire family.\nState government takes 8.75 cents of that 44.7 cents tax burden. We\npropose reducing that 8.75 cents by 1/10 of 1 percent each year for 15\nyears until the state will be taking approximately 7 cents out of each\ndollar you earn. That will then become the limit as to the percentage\nthe state can take except by a vote of the people.\nComstock Club\nBecause of that one time surplus of $826 million, we are also\nproposing an across-the-board rebate next April of 20 percent of this\nyear's income tax, 100 percent forgiveness for families with incomesoof\n$8,000 or less and individuals with $4,000 or less. And because we can\nsee an ongoing surplus if we continue to be careful, we want to reduce\nincome taxes on an ongoing basis: 7½ percent and continue the 100 percent\ncancellation for those lower income brackets.\nWe want to establish a permanent limit on taxes, not in dollars but\nin percentage, so that government's revenue can continue to grow to meet\nnecessary needs. But also so that your own incomes can grow faster than\nthe deductions taken out of those pay checks for taxes.\nWith this tax limit in effect, the state would continue to get the\nmoney it needs to meet the costs of inflation and growth plus tens of\nmillions of dollars for new spending. The budget could double from $9\nto $18 billion in 10 years and triple to $27 billion in 15.\nIf the state continues the present rate of increase in revenues with\nno limit, it will be getting $47 billion a year 15 years from now, and\nif it is getting it, that is what the budget will be: $47 billion,\nmore than five times the present level.\nAs the University of Chicago Economist Milton Friedman says,\n\"Government always lives up to its income, and then some.\"\nWhat is so horrendous about government putting a limit on the\npercentage it can take from the private sector? Why can't we have the\nexpertise to determine the point at which government becomes a drag on\nthe economy, so long as provision is made for emergencies? And we have\nmade such provision in our proposal.\nYou have to live within a budget. If you operate a business you\nhave to live within a budget. We already have a Constitutional require-\nment that the state must have a balanced budget.\nBut should government have an open end right to balance its budget\nby unbalancing yours?\nWhen an individual or a business has a lean year, they have to prune\nexpenses and work for better days.\nWhen government has a deficit, it\nexpects to solve that deficit by handing you a higher tax bill.\nCertainly, government must have income to operate. It must have\nflexibility. But we do not think it should have unlimited authority to\nraise your taxes unless at some point the people agree that the increase\nis necessary.\n- 5 -\nComstock Club\nAs I said before, all of these reforms, the ones we have made and\nthe things we hope to achieve, have involved citizen participation in\ngovernment. Contrary to what some may suggest, the wisdom of the ages\nis not neatly housed in government buildings.\nWe called on the private sector, outside experts and we asked for\nthe help of the people to both draft these reforms, generate the support\nnecessary to put them into effect and to make them work.\nWe will need the support of the people to reduce taxes, to\nstreamline local government, to crack down on crime and make the criminal\njustice system more effective and better equipped to protect the people.\nThat is the way our system of government is supposed to work. Lincoln\nsaid this is a government \"of the people, by the people, and for the\npeople.'\nThe problems we face are problems that affect all our people. And\nall our people have both the right and the obligation to help solve them.\nUnless people control government, the government will control them.\nLong ago, when man was first beginning to develop technology,\nArchimedes discovered that you can move any weight if you exert enough\npressure, with the right amount of leverage.\nAnd another philosopher, Plutarch, observed that \"perserverance is\nmore prevailing than violence\n(that) many things which cannot be\novercome when they are together\nyield themselves when taken little\nby little.\"\nThat is what we want to do. We want to take on our problems,\nparticularly the ones involving government, and little by little,\novercome them, and make it possible for California to move confidently\nahead, as we have done so dramatically in the past.\nIt can be done, if the people rise up and exert a little pressure\nin the right place.\nAnd if anyone is wondering where the first big pressure point is,\nit is in the voting booth on November 6.\n#######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes).\n- 6 -"
}