Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564452
label
Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1973 [09/01/1973-12/31/1973]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564452
contentType
document
title
Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1973 [09/01/1973-12/31/1973]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Governor Ronald Reagan's Speeches
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564452
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
50d0a97441856fad
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1973
[09/01/1973-12/31/1973]
Box: P19
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
the
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
RELEASE: FRIDAY 9:30 A.M.
Sacramento, California 95814
September 7, 1973
Ed Gray, Press Secretary
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
916-445-4571
9-6-73
RELEASE
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
SACRAMENTO HOST BREAKFAST
Sacramento
September 7, 1973
Reverand Clergy, Chamber President Ben Biaggini, Chairman Jack.
Skinner and his able committee, distinguished guests and ladies and
gentlemen:
Once again, it's a pleasure to welcome you to Sacramento. Each
year I am impressed all over again by what a unique event this is. I
know of no other state where such a cross section of top business,
agricultural and industrial leadership assembles in this manner. And
this year, I'm told, we have the largest and most distinguished
gathering ever assembled.
Perhaps that is appropriate, because here in California we have
reached a great moment of decision in the history of our State and yes,
in the history of government.
This is my seventh Host Breakfast. During these past several
years I'have tried to give an account of the many problems we faced and
what we were doing to solve them.
Back in that first report, we had almost as many problems as
there are candidates today.
I think by now you are familiar with all the cutting, squeezing,
and trimming, that pulled California back from the brink of bankruptcy
and restored state government to a healthy and sound financial condition.
I can report on the continuing gain from the welfare reforms we
had implemented a year or so before our last meeting. And I should
because many of you helped make these reforms possible.
At last count, there are 368,000 fewer people on welfare than
when we started.
The total savings in projected costs now exceeds $1 billion.
And yet we were able to increase benefits for the truly needy
families who remained on the rolls, and to provide cost of living
adjustments for the elderly, the blind and the disabled.
The federal government has recruited a number of our welfare
team to help carry out reforms at the national level and to assist
other states in achieving what we have done in California.
None of these things came easily, In fact, when the night winds
come down off the Sierras, you can still hear echoing across the Valley
the anguished cries of those who would be the last of the big spenders--
of other peoples' money.
-1-
Host Breakfast
Just the other day I was charged with threatening the very
structure of government because I vetoed 167 bills last year. That's
a malicious falsehood. I vetoed 177!
Seriously, none of our efforts to bring common sense into
choosing priorities was at the expense of government's legitimate and
essential functions.
For example: The budget for student scholarships and loans was
$4.7 million six years ago, now it'is almost $39 million.
State aid to public schools (k-12) has almost doubled, from $1.1
billion
to
$2.2
billion--
92 percent increase in funds to match an
enrollment increase of only 5.7 percent.
We finally succeeded in adopting a property tax reform that gives
every homeowner a $1,750 property tax exemption, and at the same time
the greatest single year increase of state support ever provided our
public schools.
In recent weeks, school districts throughout California have been
rolling back school property tax rates.
In 1967, the state budget was divided roughly half for local
programs and half for state operations. This year's budget is divided
roughly two-thirds for local programs and one third for state operations.
This tight rein on state administrative costs has paid off. Last
year, California's bonds received a Triple-A rating the highest you can
get. And because of this, we will save millions of dollars in interest
costs.
When we had to raise taxes in those first months of 1967, I said
that just as soon as we could get our heads above water, we would try to
reduce the tax burden and cancel out those increases. We had our first
surplus in 1970, and gave it back to you in a 10 percent rebate on your
state income tax. When we switched to withholding, there was a 20 per-
cent one-time income tax cut. Now instead of spending a million dollars
more each day than we are taking in---as we were six years ago
the
State has been collecting $1.5 million a day more than it needs and, as
you know, there will be another one-time rebate (ranging from 20 to 35
percent). That very succinctly is the story of our cut, squeeze and
trim. From insolvency to nine months of battling to give the taxpayers
back their money.
Last year at this meeting I told you of a dream an idea to see
if governments in all of California could be made more efficient,
eliminating duplication and waste. A task force has been assembled and
is now at work. Next year I hope to be able to report to you not only
their findings, but the steps we are taking to implement their
recommendations
-2-
Host Breakfast
To be more responsive to the people, we must have enough
government to carry out all of government's legitimate responsibilities,
but not one bit more.
History makes it plain that unless restrained, government
proliferates to a point where its cost bankrupts the people at the same
time it robs them of their freedom.
In our nation today, government has grown too big, too complex--
and possessed of what Cicero called the "arrogance of officialdom."
Remote from the wishes of the people, it forgets that ours is a system
of government by the consent of the governed---not the other way around.
We have seen a blatant example of this in the issue of public safety.
The people of California voted to restore capital punishment to
the maximum extent permitted within the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on
that subject.
So far, the elected representatives of the people have not
implemented the decision of the people.
I don't belie ve those who voted to re-establish capital punishment
did so out of any feelings of vengeance or because they were blood
thirsty zealots. They simply believe that crminals who murder innocent
women and children, who gun down police and engage in political
assassination will not be deterred by anything less than the ultimate
penalty--and they are right.
For too many years, we have had a moratorium on capital punishment
unfortunately it has not been a total moratorium. Last year alone,
there were 1,789 executions in California. Those who were sentenced
to death had no trial by jury; no judge pronounced sentence nor were
they afforded the protection of the appeal process in our legal system.
They were picked at random by their executioners, who had also
appointed themselves judge and jury.
The executions took place on our streets, in the victims' homes
and in places of business. If there were pleas for clemency, they went
unheeded: 1,789 innocent people in our state were executed with no
recognition of their constitional rights or of the moratorium that only
gave shelter to their executioners.
Many Californians believe that if there were no moratorium, some
of the 1,789 (wilful homicides) would not have taken place.
-3-
Host Breakfast
Recently, after a year of study, our Select Committee on Law
Enforcement problems issued its report. It called for mandatory prison
sentences for heroin pushers, for a tightening of every legal loophole
or procedure that permits the guilty to get off with a slap on the wrist
instead of the prison sentence they deserve; and to do whatever is
needed to guarantee that criminals who use firearms shall go to prison
and stay there until they are no longer a menace to society.
In all, the committee made almost 100 recommendations. Some are
incorporated in legislation now awaiting action. Others are administra-
tive or may require constitutional amendments. There are far too many
for me to mention here today.
But I would like to spend a few seconds on one recommendation
that has caused a little stir. There is a legal loophole that protects
the guilty, yet offers no effective remedy for the victime it was
designed to protect. It is the so-called "exclusionary rule."
It isn't something written into the Constitution by an act of
the people or their elected representatives. It was created by a series
of very controversial judicial decisions. Many judges, including the
Chief Justice of the United States--do not believe it offers the
protection for which it was intended, but that by suppressing valid
evidence it has become a shield for the guilty.
The exclusionary rule provides that evidence may not be admitted
in a trial if a court decides (sometimes years later) that the police
made a mistake in collecting that evidence. There is nothing in the
rule that penalizes the offending police officer nor does the exclusion-
ary rule compensate the victim of the officer's mistake. The rule is
directed against inanimate objects, a murder weapon for example. The
rule simply says such evidence can not be introduced in a trial even if
this means freeing the guilty.
Some strange decisions have occurred because of the exclusionary
rule. One involved a drunk driver. His blood test showed excessive
alcohol. It could not be used. The court ruled he was incapable of
giving consent to the blood test--he was too drunk.
Then, there was what might be called the "diaper decision."
In this case a couple of years ago, the police went to search
a couple suspected of narcotics trafficking. The officers knocked
politely and identified themselves. They had a search warrant. so far,
so good. But the couple had a 9-month old baby with them. The officers
became suspicious that something might be concealed in the baby's diapers
beyond what you might naturally expect to find. And they were right;
they found heroin.
-4-
Host Breakfast
The case did not even get to the appeal process. It was thrown
out at the lower court level on the grounds that the infant was not
covered by the search warrant and did not give its consent to be
searched.
The deputy district attorney handling the case was quoted as
saying now everyone knows just where to hide narcotics "in the baby's
diapers."
This type of unreasonable application of the exclusionary rule
has become a major barrier to effective law enforcement. Our committee
proposed that we adopt a substitute, a step advocated by the Chief
Justice of the United States and many others. The reaction in certain
circles was something to behold. You would think we were rejecting
the American Revolution and giving the country back to George III.
What the task force proposed was that anyone found to have been
a victim of an unreasonable search would be able to recover damages
against the public entity employing the law enforcement officer who had
goofed. The full constitutional protections would be retained; where
search warrants were required, they will still be required. But if a
mistake was made, and valid evidence of a crime was uncovered, that
evidence would not be excluded from court.
One legislator accused us of having a 19th century attitude on
law and order. Well, now that is a totally false charge. I have an
18th century attitude. That is when the Founding Fathers made it clear
that the safety of law abiding citizens should be one of government's
primary concerns.
If a policeman stops a car for speeding and finds a dead body
in the trunk, I don't think our legal system should ignore the fact
that someone has been killed.
We must give law enforcement the tools it needs if our people are
to enjoy again the right to live and work and play in safety.
And to enjoy all the other rights our system has to offer, we must
have a stable and prosperous economy.
Because you are from the business community, I know you will
understand why I dwell again and again on this need for fiscal stability.
Without it, all of our rights and even our survival as a free nation are
threatened. This has been the sole purpose behind 6½ years of cut,
squeeze and trim. All our economies climaxed by the welfare and Medi-
Cal reforms finally led to that surplus of more than three-forths of a
billion dollars. As you know, I have signed legislation to return the
bulk of that surplus to the taxpayers by suspending collection of one
penny of sales tax for six months and by giving a rebate on this year's
state income tax ranging from 100 percent at the botton of the earning
scale to 20 percent at the top. What has to be recognized, however, is
that this rebate of the surplus came about only because our tax limitation
initiative qualified for the ballot and a special election was called to
give the people a chance to vote on rebate of the surplus, an ongoing
cut in the income tax and a long-range plan to reduce the rate of
Host Breakfast
Ask any citizen on any day if taxes are too high, if government
spends too mucheand if he would like to have a say about government's
right to confiscate his earnings. The answer would by, "h--1 yes!"
On November 6, the citizens of California will vote on just that
very thing, possibly for the first time in the history of government:
certainly for the first time in the history of California. And yet
forces have mobilized urging the people to vote against their own best
interest. Charges are being made that limiting taxes will somehow cause
taxes to go up. At the same time they charge the limitation will deny
government the revenue it needs to succor the aged, heal the sick and
educate the young. Obviously, they can't have it both ways. But
consistency has no place in arguments designed not to enlighten, but to
confuse the voters.
Ten days ago I called attention to the fact that the "neutral
analysis" of the tax initiative which will appear on the ballot was
decidedly unneutral. Indeed its author has no more than one occasion
publicly spoken out in opposition to the initiative. In like
circumstances, a judge would disqualify himself.
Let me give you one example: the analysis points out that under
the terms of the initiative the legislature by a 2/3 vote can give
cities permission to have an income tax OF their own. Reading that,
any voter has to say, "Heaven help us: Now in addition to the steeply
progressive state and federal income taxes, our home town is going to
have one too." He will say that because a totally false impression
has been created by a half truth. Yes, if the voters approve the
initiative the legislature can by a 2/3 vote allow local income taxes.
What it does not say is that right now, charter cities claim they already
have the right and the others can be given the right by a simple majority
of the legislature.
The good ladies of the League of Women Voters have decided all on
their own to oppose it because "property taxes will go up." Yet the
League of Cities is in opposition to the initiative because it will not
let them raise property taxes. They are both wrong. The truth is, we
have incorporated into the initiative the terms of the property tax
reform adopted by a 2/3 vote of the legislature last year. Local taxing
entities can increase property taxes to meet the costs of inflation and
population increase. But to permanently raise property taxes beyond
that, requires a vote of the people.
-6-
Host Breakfast
The actual wording of the initiative is complicated and admittedly
hard for a layman to understand. That is because it is written in the
technical legalese which seems to be a part of anything done by
government. (The Department of Agriculture in Washington once put out
a 700-word definition of a farm. And then followed with an 800-word
interpretation of the definition.)
The actual terms of the limitation we have proposed and what it
will accomplish are extremely simple and easy to understand. They are
just hard to accept by those whose own interests are related to how
much money government has to spend.
As I said earlier, one part of the initiative has already been
achieved-- (the one time rebate)
Now, you are being offered the chance to assure by constitutional
amendment, elimination of the state income tax for families earning
$8,000 or less, individuals $4,000 or less plus a permanent 7½ percent
cut for all those above that level. Your "yes" vote will also set a
limit on the percentage of Californian's total earnings the state can
take in taxes without the peoples' permission.
Some of thosewho would tax and tax, spend and spend have screamed
this will put government in a straitjacket with a rigid tax system
implanted in the constitution. It will do no such thing. It simply
gives the people a say in how far government can go in confiscating
their earnings.
If the people of California adopt this limitation by voting yes
on Proposition 1 November 6, there will be an orderly reduction over a
15 year period or until we reach the 7 percent limit. Very simply, our
Economic Estimates Commission will meet in October to give us its
projection on total earnings of all the people in California and the
percent of that total the state will be taking in taxes. Beginnning
next year, we will reduce the state's share by 1/10th of 1 percent each
year until we reach a ceiling of about 7 percent instead of the more than
8 percent we are presently taking. That 1/10th of the 1 percent will be
returned to the taxpayers. In the first year, it will amount to about
$200 million. In five years it can mean a penny reduction in the sales
tax or a 25 percent cut in the income tax or a combination of both. That
will be up to the legislature.
-7-
Host Breakfast
Provision is also made for all emergencies: economic or natural
disaster. And of course, the people by their vote can increase the limit
any time if they feel that government should have more resources. The
legislature, in the mean time, will have the authority it has always had
to change the tax structure, raise or lower taxes all within the limit,
of course. There is one exception--it will require a 2/3 vote to raise
or lower all taxes. At present, only the Bank and Corporation tax
requires a 2/3 majority.
It is significant that not one single opponent of this initiative
has presented an argument based on the actual provisions of Proposition
1. Instead, they have built their entire case on false claims and dire
predictions.
Over the weekend one leader of the opposition flatly declared that
Proposition 1 cancelled the minimum income tax and therefore a man could
earn $10 million a year and pay no income tax. No one questioned him
as to how this could be, so his statement went unchallenged. The simple
truth is the minimum income tax is not changed in any way by our proposal.
They have argued that we exaggerate the percentage of the peoples'
earnings it takes to run government. There is an easy way to settle
that; take the total cost of government--federal, state and local, and
see what percentage it is of the combined earnings of all the people.
Those figures are easily available. Last year, in 1972, Californians
earned $102.2 billion. Government, federal, state and local, took about
$45.7 billion of that. And that is 44.71 percent of the peoples'
earnings. Incidentally, that is about 5 percent higher than it was in
1971, so it is safe to say that here in 1973, government is taking well
over 45 percent.
Do the opponents maintain government does not cost too much? Or
if they agree it does-what proposals do they have for reducing it?
Some say we have things under control now and SC don't need a limit
because there will be no tax increase in the immediate future. One
critic has a bill moving through the legislature that will cost nearly
$400 million in its first year and almost $1 billion four years from now.
So far, he has not proposed a revenue measure to pay for it-min spite
of the fact that his bill, if passed, will automatically force a $400
million tax.increase to start with, increasing in four years to a
billion dollars.
-S-
Host Breakfast
Indeed, there would be no surplus and no possibility of a tax
cut now if more than a billion dollars of added spending had not been
blue pencilled from the budget over these last six years. And almost
without exception, those who oppose a tax limit were the advocates of
that increased spending. The issue before the people--plain and simple
is between those with a kind of elitist philosophy--who think the people
lack the intelligence to spend their money properly; that government
must take their money from them and buy for them the things they are too
stupid to buy for themselves or the contrasting philosophy of those who
still believe as Thomas Jefferson did, that "a wise and frugal government.
which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave
them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and
improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has
earned. That is the sum of good government."
Proposition 1 is the result of a year's study by a task force
which included private citizens (some of you, in fact); our own cabinet
and staff members and some of the Nation's most respected economists.
It is a one time opportunity you have never had before and can you
believe if we fail you will ever have a second chance?
We have proposed putting this limitation in the constitution
because that is the proper place for it. Too many people have forgotten
the nature of the document. It wasn't designed to protect government
against the people. It is a contract whereby the people limit
government.
I have no illusions about the battle ahead. Those who would
think of government as a giant feed lot with themselves in charge of
the trough are fighting for the unlimited power to confiscate and
distribute the earnings of the people. It is time for us to decide
if government is the servant or the master.
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes
in, or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will
stand by the above quotes.)
-9-
The
the
N
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
RELEASE: P.Ms. WEDNESDAY
Sacramento, California 95814
SEPTEMBER 12, 1973
Ed Gray, Press Secretary
916-445-4571
9-11-73
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
RELEASE
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
Anaheim, California
September 12, 1973
When we met at Monterey last year, the main theme of my message
involved the challenges facing the legal system, the problems of law
enforcement, the concern of our people about crime, trial delays and
court congestion.
It was my feeling then that public safety is one of our society's
most compelling problems--- in California and throughout the nation. I
still feel the same and today I would like to bring you up to date on
what we are doing about it.
At that time, our Select Committee on Law Enforcement Problems was
just beginning an 11-month study of California's criminal justice system.
As you know, the committee completed its work some weeks ago.
Although it is too extensive to outline for you in detail, I do want to
mention some of the findings and recommendations that emphasize our
basic goals.
The committee found that the sheer size and scope of the criminal
justice system requires efforts now to streamline administrative
operations. So they proposed creation of a single Department of Public
Safety, incorporating all the functions in the executive branch of
government which concern law enforcement and public safety.
They recommended that the state help train and provide financial
assistance for local law enforcement in the handling of riots or major
emergencies. Legislation is now pending to provide funds for an improved
mutual aid program.
To help relieve court congestion, the committee suggested smaller
juries for some types of offenses, something that has worked well in
other states. They proposed reclassifying some minor traffic violations
as infractions, and the development of strict standards for plea
bargaining to assure that guilty offenders do not get off with a lighter
sentence than they deserve, simply because the district attorney and the
courts have a heavy workload.
Because narcotics are the cause of so much other crime, the committee
said trials involving drugs should receive toppriority plus other steps
to guarantee that all criminal cases either go to trial within 60 days or
reach a decision through a defendant's voluntary plea.
- 1 -
State Bar
They also recommended a substitute remedy for the exclusionary rule,
a step advocated by Chief Justice Burger and others who feel this has
become a loophole by which the guilty escape justice.
In all, the report contains almost a hundred recommendations, along
with extensive information about the operations and the shortcomings of
the criminal justice system.
Many of the recommendations, of course, are familiar to you. They
involve problems which you yourselves have recognized and are working to
correct.
Our goals are the same: to serve the cause of justice by dealing
more effectively with crime and by overcoming the barriers that obstruct
more effective enforcement of the law. By doing so, we will assure
greater confidence in the criminal justice system and a greater respect
for the law itself.
The people look to your profession for leadership in these efforts.
And we need your help, too. Together, we must make the courtroom again a
place where the search for the truth may go forth in dignity, with
respect for the rights of the accused and for the laws that protect the
innocent.
Disraeli said "justice is truth in action." If we do all that is
necessary to assure that finding the truth is the primary function of the
law and the courts, then we will assure justice for all.
A few months ago, another task force began examining the workload of
the appeals courts, to see where improvements are needed. Although the
members are still working on the final report, one of their preliminary
findings is most encouraging.
Apparently, cases not involving substantial issues of law are being
processed more speedily than in previous years---simply because the judges
are writing shorter opinions, especially on matters they regard as
frivolous points.
It is an encouraging indication that we may be catching up on the
judicial workload.
Each year I have had the privilege of visiting with you, I have
discussed matters involving the law and your profession. Today, I would
like to ask you to put on your other hat as citizens of California, and
let me broaden my remarks to include another subject: the tax initiative
that will be on the ballot November 6. This has been in the news quite
a bit lately and you will be hearing more about it in the weeks to come.
- 2 -
State Bar
As you know, part of our tax reduction program has already been
achieved. The legislature agreed to suspend the sales tax by a penny
for six months and return almost $400 million additional in a rebate of
this year's state income tax.
This is the third time we have been able to give the taxpayers a
rebate and so far as I know it has never been done by any other
government body in our country.
In returning this one time surplus, we will totally eliminate income
taxes for all California families earning $8,000 or less per year. For
everyone else, the rebate will range from 35 to 20 percent. When you add
up your state income tax obligation next April 15, you will simply deduct
20 to 35 percent depending on your bracket and put it back in your pocket.
The second part of the plan involves the initiative itself, a
decision which you and every other voter will be called upon to make
November 6.
The plan outlined in Proposition 1 is a workable and realistic long
term program to reduce your taxes, not just this year, but permanently.
It was the result of many months of work by a task force which had
the help of some of America's most distinguished economists.
In tracing the growth of bigger and bigger government over the past
40 years, the task force discovered that Newton's law of gravity applies
to everything except taxes.
In 1930, governments, federal, state and local only took about 15
percent of the people's income. Today, in California total government
revenues take 44.7 percent of total personal income.
Government costs the average family more than it spends for food,
shelter and clothing combined. And whether we have good times or bad,
government's share always goes up, leaving less take home pay to meet the
cost of the children's education, or to improve the standard of living.
Because government has an unlimited power to tax, people are having
a harder and harder time making ends meet.
We know inflation is the most critical economic problem we have today.
Consider this very often when you get a cost of living increase in your
paycheck which is only intended to maintain your purchasing power, you
move up into additional surtax brackets and find you have not as a result
kept even with inflation.
And make no mistake about it, that inflation is caused by government
spending. Higher taxes mean higher prices and this combined impact means
our people are caught in a vicious treadmill, always trying to catch up.
- 3 -
State Bar
It is not a question of which comes first, the chicken or the egg.
Those of you who handle tax matters know which comes first when it comes
to government: taxes take the first and largest slice of everyone's
income.
Unless we slow down this spiral of higher and higher taxes,
government very shortly will be consuming more than half of the personal
income in America.
Proposition 1 is designed to allow the take home pay of the people to
grow faster than their tax deductions.
Along with an immediate 7½ percent income tax cut next year, it will
totally eliminate the income tax for families earning $8,000 a year or
less permanently. And it will incorporate into the state Constitution
a program to slowly reduce government's share of California's total
personal income. It will accomplish this by imposing a maximum limit on
the percentage of total personal income that the state can take in taxes.
Right now, the state's share of the cost of government is almost 9
percent of your total earnings. Under our plan, this percentage will be
slowly reduced each year until we reach a limt of around 7 percent. I
know that does not sound like much but it represents more than a 20 percent
reduction in the cost of government. or to put it another way, the people
over just the next 15 years will keep for their own use more than $118
billion that otherwise would be taken in state taxes.
At the same time, government will have all it needs to meet the cost
of inflation, population growth and whatever new services the people may
decide they want.
As a matter of fact, the state budget could double (to $18 billion)
in the next 10 years and triple to $27 billion in 15 years even under
the limit.
What about an economic slump with great unemployment or a natural
disaster an earthquake? There is a provision for raising the tax limit
to meet any such emergency. There is a built-in surplus, but beyond that
the legislature can temporarily raise taxes above the limit in event of an
emergency. If taxes are raised to meet an emergency, the people will vote
at the next general election to ratify or cancel that tax increase. But
government will no longer have a blank check to be drawn on the people's
bank accounts.
- 4 -
State Bar
This is the year to apply a brake to higher taxes. Our school
population is leveling off, the great water project is nearing completion
The normal growth of the economy will be able to accommodate the
additional revenue government needs without raising your taxes.
But you cannot be sure your taxes will not be raised unless the
people write this protection against higher taxes in the Constitution.
In these 6 years, I have blue penciled more than a billion dollars.
Those who oppose this initiative are the same people who fought
against reforming welfare and said it would not work Yet it is
because of welfare reform and other economies that we have a surplus to
return to the people.
Some of them were against property tax reform. Yet because of
property tax reform last year school districts this year are receiving
the greatest single increase of state support in history, an all time
record amount, yet property tax rates for schools are being rolled back.
If we had listened to those who opposed all these things we would
be staring a tax increase in the face instead of looking forward to a
tax rebate.
One of the complaints about Proposition 1 is that it is a
Constitutional amendment and is too complicated. As attorneys, you know
a Constitutional amendment has to be drafted in the required formal
legal terms to cover all the contingencies.
But the goal is not complicated at all. It is to systematically
reduce taxes. With Proposition 1 in effect, in 5 years, we can have
another 25 percent income tax cut or a 1-cent permanent reduction in the
sales tax. In 10 years, we can have a budget that is double in size at
the same time we have a 2-cent cut in the sales tax or a 60 percent cut
in the income tax or a combination of both.
Some of the doom criers say that limiting the amount of your income
that government can take deprives the legislature of the flexibility it
must have to run government. What they mean by flexibility is the
unlimited ability to get into your pockets.
That is too much "flexibility."
We have also heard from some who say a tax limit should not be
"frozen" in the state Constitution. Why not?
We already have a constitutional requirement that the state have a
balanced budget.
But second, have we really forgotten what the Constitution is for?
It is not designed to protect government from the people, it is to
protect the people against government.
State Bar
It is not a document in which government tells the people what they
can do. It is a contract by which the people tell government what we,
the people, will permit government to do.
In the original United States Constitution, they included a provision
that your property cannot be seized without due process of law. The
founding fathers, in their wisdom, saw fit to "freeze" this protection
into the Constitution.
That is what it is for, to make sure that the people control the
government, not the other way around.
If we did not have a requirement that the state budget be balanced,
does anyone seriously doubt that California would now be up to the timber
line on Mount Whitney in debt today?
We have only to look at the federal government for the answer.
The National debt has been raised 23 times just since 1961. It costs
$26 billion a year just to pay the interest. That is the third largest
item in the federal budget.
Deficit financing and wasteful spending has helped generate the very
inflation that we are trying to curb today. Of course, we probably should
be happy about government waste and extravagance---can you imagine how
miserable we would be if we were getting all the government we are paying
for?
It boils down to this---a test between those who want government to
have the power to take more and more of your income in taxes and those
who want to limit that power. The people have the absolute right under
the state Constitution or the federal Constitution to say what that limit
should be.
Unless we assert that right, in a few short years, the total cost of
government will be taking more than half of the personal income of our
people. But many prominent economists say that with such a tax level our
free economic system cannot generate the investment, the jobs, the new
business we must have to maintain a prosperous economy.
But much worse, as the total tax burden goes higher, the ability of
more of our people to provide for their own essential needs will decline.
Each year, more and more citizens find themselves unable to finance their
own health care, the education of their children, all the myriad of "needs
that government is so eager to meet for a price.
As taxes go higher, government has a built-in excuse to take even
more of the people's earnings to meet needs the people find themselves
unable to finance---simply because government has already taken so much
of their income. So they, too, become dependent on government. And
dependent people can be manipulated and controlled.
This is the tragic cycle of dependency and it has one ultimate end,
A free economic system and the freedom of choice it assures our people
cannot long survive the kind of tax burden it is forced to bear today.
When you lose control of your own economic destiny, all of the other
freedoms we take for granted are in jeopardy.
The choice is simple. The people will either control government or
government will control the people.
On November 6, the people will have a chance to reassert the ideal
that in our society, government is the servant---not the master.
Our secretary of Business and Transportation, Frank Walton called it
correctly. On November 6, those who are taxpayers will vote yes. Tax
spenders will vote no.
#####
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,
or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by
the above quoted).
- 6 -
9/21
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
RELEASE: FRIDAY P.Ms.
Sacramento, California 95814
September 21, 1973
Ed Gray, Press Secretary
916-445-4571
9-20-73
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
RELEASE
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION
69th ANNUAL CONVENTION
Town and Country Hotel Convention Center, San Diego
September 21, 1973
I know you are familiar with our efforts in Sacramento these past
61/2 years to reduce the size and cost of government, to bring relief to
the property tax owner, to senior citizens, to people in the middle and
lower income brackets.
It is a funny thing: no one ever threw rocks at us for proposing to
spend more money. But there was a constant volley from every direction
every time we tried to keep the budget in line, to hold down taxes so our
people would have more of their own money to keep for themselves.
We know we will always have to have tax revenue to finance the
essential and legitimate services we ask government to provide. But we
also believe that reducing the overall tax burden on the people of
California is an urgent need, not just this year, but on a permanent,
ongoing basis.
That is what we have been trying to do for 6½¹₂ years. That is why
I have vetoed more than $1.3 billion in excessive spending.
That is why we implemented welfare reform. We now have more than
300,000 fewer people on the rolls than when we started.
That is why we insisted on cutting, squeezing and trimming in
every way we could.
It was because of welfare reform, because of the constant effort to
cut, squeeze and trim that this year we found ourselves in an unusual
situation for a government. We had a budget surplus.
You know, of course, that this surplus is going to be returned to
the people in the form of a rebate---the third such one-time income tax
rebate we have been able to achieve in Sacramento. In 1970, it was 10
percent. When we switched to withholding, it was a 20 percent rebate.
This year, the rebate involves both the sales and income tax.
The 1-cent increase in the sales tax (which is financing the property
tax relief in SB 90) will be suspended for six months, starting October 1.
Under the plan we adopted this year, the entire income tax
obligation for every family earning $8,000 a year or less will be
eliminated for the year 1973.
- 1 -
Real Estate Assoc.
--And for everyone else, there will be a one-time income tax
credit ranging from 20 to 35 percent, depending on your income tax
bracket.
Next April 15, when you figure up what you owe, you will just put
back into your pocket an amount equal to whatever percentage rebate you
have coming to you. If ithas already been deducted, you will get a refund
But I would like to ask everyone here to recall, if you will, the
situation we faced earlier this year before our long-range tax
initiative (Proposition 1) qualified for the ballot.
They would not let us put our plan for permanent tax relief on the
ballot. And they were not talking about returning the surplus.
They were talking about spending it.
More than $1 billion of new spending was proposed. That would have
used up the surplus and there would have been no money left for a one-
time rebate this year. On the contrary, we would be facing a new tax
increase instead because most of the programs they wanted would have been
ongoing programs that grew in cost every year.
By standing fast against higher spending, and with the help of more
than half a million signatures on our tax plan, we managed to win the
debate on the surplus. It is going back into the pockets of those
who paid it.
But don't kid yourselves. If our initiative had not already
qualified for the election November 6, that money would have been spent
long ago.
When the advocates of bigger and bigger government manage to get
their hands on an extra tax dollar or two, they hang on like a Gila
Monster until they find some way to spend it.
Fortunately, we had enough help in the legislature and from the
people to force a return of this surplus this year. But we may not be
so lucky next time, unless we succeed in applying permanent restraints on
runaway government spending by passing Proposition 1, November 6.
If ever there was an idea whose time has come, this is it. And
this is the year to put the brakes on bigger and more costly government.
School enrollment is leveling off, the water plan is nearing
completion, our financial situation is so bright that we are returning
a three-quarter of a billion dollars budget surplus to the people. Even
the opponents of Proposition 1 concede that there will not be any need for
new state taxes in the next few years.
- 2 -
Real Estate Assoc.
Despite that, they are fighting with all the power they can muster
against the idea of spending restraints on government.
They know that if the people ever manage to place a reasonable limit
on taxes into the Constitution, their own days as the last of the big
spenders are over for good.
That is just what we are trying to do with Proposition 1. It is
certainly not an effort to handicap government in any way.
But it will require government to be more careful with your tax
dollars, to establish reasonable priorities and avoid the waste and
duplication that we have had so often in government. And if the people
vote "yes" on November 6, this plan will put into effect a long range
your
program to permanently reduce taxes and to limit the amount money
government can take in taxes.
The plan itself is the result of a task force on tax reduction we
appointed last year to look into the entire subject of taxes.
We asked them to see if there is not some way we can meet the
legitimate needs of government, provide additional money to cover
inflation and costs due to population growth, allow plenty of
flexibility and still reduce the tax burden of our people.
In addition to our own cabinet members and senior staff, the
consultants included some of this country's most distinguished economists.
They believe and we believe that the tax burden is too high and we
are headed for the biggest economic bellyache America has ever known
unless we do something about it.
We believe California is the place to start and I think you will
agree, too.
Our task force traced the growth of bigger and bigger government and
found that back in 1930 the combined cost of government (federal, state,
and local) was only 15 percent of total personal income. Today,
government revenues amount to 44.7 percent of total personal income.
The state's share of that is almost 9 percent.
Unless we slow down the growth of government spending, the state
budget alone will grow from $9 to $47 billion in just 15 short years.
Unless something is done, government's total share will reach almost 55
percent of total personal income in 15 years, and that figure may even
be a bit conservative. Other economists project a government spending
spree that will be taking as much as 67 percent of total personal income
by 1990.
- 3 -
Real Estate Assoc.
That is why we need to apply a brake to the growth of bigger
government, why the people are being given an opportunity on November 6:
to place an upper limit on the amount of taxes the state can take.
In addition to the one-time tax rebate this year and the sales tax
suspension, with Proposition 1 in effect, there will be another 7½
percent cut in the income tax next year. And that cut will be permanent.
You have heard, I am sure, all the talk about this plan favoring the
rich. Well that is wrong. Under this plan, state income taxes will be
eliminated entirely for every family earning $8,000 or less and that will
be permanent.
But the most important feature of this plan is that it will, at
last, force government to start living within its income just as every
family must do if it wants to avoid bankruptcy. It will do this by
slowly reducing the percentage of total personal income that the state
government can take. Right now it is almost 9 percent.
Under our plan, this limit would be reduced by 1/10 of 1 percent
each year for 15 years until we reach a level of around 7 percent.
State government would still be getting more revenue, but as the income
of the people went up, the percentage taken in state taxes would slowly
decline. To put it another way, this plan is designed to allow the
income of the people to grow faster than their tax deductions.
This limitation will make possible more tax reduction in the
future. In 5 years, we could have another 25 percent cut in the state
income tax or a 1 cent reduction in the sales tax. And that reduction
would not be temporary; it would be permanent. In 10 years there could
be a 60 percent cut in state income taxes or we could reduce the sales
tax permanently by one third---from 6 to 4 cents.
Government would still have more than ample revenues. With this tax
limit in effect, the budget could double (if necessary) to $18 billion
in 10 years and triple to $27 billion in 15 years. The state's budget
for each essential service also could triple, for education, for mental
health programs, for all of government's legitimate programs.
But the limit will not give government a blank check. That is what
we have had up to now. That is why taxes and government spending have
been going up so fast.
We included provisions for emergencies. The limit could be raised
if we had an earthquake or an economic slump or any other legitimate
emergency.
- 4 -
Real Estate Assoc.
But raising taxes even temporarily would require a two thirds vote
in the legislature and that increase would have to be ratified or
cancelled by the people at the next general election.
That last provision- vote of the people is simply a clause to
give the people the right to decide whether a spending program favored by
the legislature is a bona fide emergency.
As you have probably heard by now, limiting government's authority
to tax your income is not very popular in some circles.
You will be hearing this chorus of criticism in the next couple of
months. When you do, I would like you to remember one thing: when have
these critics ever advocated reducing the overall tax burden?
They are on the other side. Some of them were against our welfare
reforms, against the property tax reform, efficiency in government.
Most of them have a long track record of favoring anything that increases
the power, the size and the cost of government.
If we had listened to them, there would have been no rebates in the
past, no welfare reform, and no budget surplus to rebate to the people
this year.
They complain that limiting government's power to tax would deny the
legislature the "flexibility" it must have. Their idea of flexibility is
to continue government's unlimited power to dig deeper and deeper into
your pocket books.
They say a tax limit shold not be "frozen" in the Constitution.
Why shouldn't it be? We already have restraints involving taxes and
spending in the Constitution. The governor has to submit a balanced
budget, and it is a good thing we do, because if we did not, California's
state government would be wallowing in debt today, instead of having a
Triple-A rating on its bonds, the highest credit rating you can get.
I do not remember these groups ever suggesting that we repeal the
16th Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
That involves the power to tax incomes. It was "frozen" into the
Federal Constitution back in 1913.
If we can put the power to tax in the Constitution, the people can
certainly put a limit on the amount they can be taxed.
But there is a more basic issue involved. In the original 10
amendments to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers said government
could not seize your property without due process of law. And that
protection against excessive government was "locked" into the
Constitution.
- 5 -
Real Estate Assoc.
The money you earn by your own labor or through investments is
your property. The people have a right to say how much of it they can
afford for government. If they do not have that right, then freedom as
we know it will not survive very long.
The truth of the matter is: our economy cannot go on bearing the
tax load we have today. Government now has the right to balance its
budget by unbalancing yours, through higher and higher taxes. And so
the cycle continues, with more and more people becoming dependent on
government.
When you cut through all of the rhetoric, these critics are really
saying that the tax burden in California and America is not really that
high. Well, we say it is. And we want to reduce that tax burden, by
putting some reasonable restraints on the growth of government.
We believe the people have a right to keep more of their earnings
for themselves. They believe government has the right to take the
first and the largest slice of your income. And that is why they want
unlimited taxing authority. It is as simple as that.
If you agree with us, we need your help. We need the help of
everyone who wants lower taxes. We need you to help acquaint the people
with Proposition 1. And we need you to help get out the "yes" vote on
November 6.
On that day, California has an opportunity that may never come
again. We have a chance to reassert the principle that in this free
society of ours, government is the servant, not the master.
On November 6, the people who want lower taxes will vote yes.
Those who want more government spending will vote no.
#####
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,
or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by
the above quotes).
- 6 -
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
RELEASE: MONDAY P.Ms.
Sacramento, California 95814
OCTOBER 1, 1973
Ed Gray, Press Secretary
916-445-4571
10-1-73
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS ASSN. OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO
October 1, 1973
Your industry is geared to helping people build greater financial
security for themselves and their families.
You know possibly better than anyone else the impact that inflation
has on people who are trying to build a nest egg for their kids' college
education, for their families, or for their own old age.
And you know that inflation, a cruel and silent tax, erodes their
ability to accomplish those goals. As they increase their earnings to
keep pace with the reduced purchasing power of the dollar, government
takes more and more of those dollars in taxes.
From the very first day we went to Sacramento, six years and eight
months ago, we insisted on economy in government until cut, squeeze, and
trim became the trademark of our administration.
The cost of welfare was growing three times as fast as government
revenues and the whole system was riddled with abuses and sometimes,
outright fraud.
Over the protests and objections of the same big spenders who today
oppose our proposal to reduce taxes, we reformed welfare. There now are
368,000 fewer people on the rolls than when we started. And we have a
budget surplus of more than $800 million.
The first time we had a surplus was in 1970. We gave it back as a
10 percent rebate on the state income tax. We did it again in 1972 when
we had the windfall from withholding. That was a 20 percent rebate.
But this year's surplus was $800 million. When you propose giving
that much back, you are eyeball to eyeball with the last of the big
spenders of other people's money.
But you are going to get that surplus back:
--A penny of the sales tax will be suspended for 6 months starting
today and that will account for #320 million of it.
--Families earning $8,000 or less will not have to pay any state
income taxes at all for 1973, and
--Every other taxpayer will get a one-time rebate ranging from 20 to
35 percent, with the largest percentages going to our people in the
middle and lower middle income brackets. Next April 15, you will just
figure up what you owe and put back 20 to 35 percent of that, depending
on your tax bracket.
1
Insurance Agents
Putting it this way makes it sound pretty easy. It was about as
easy as getting between the hog and the bucket.
We first proposed returning the surplus back in January. There were
a billion dollars worth of ways to spend it pending in the legislature,
much of it on programs that would not be just one-time costs, but which
would continue year after year. Instead of rebates, we would have had to
increase taxes if we had listened to the spenders.
Government is supposed to provide certain services for the people.
But it has an obligation to provide those services with efficiency and at
the least possible cost. And when government collects more than it needs
to meet legitimate expenses, it should return the surplus to the people.
The impasse lasted until half a million citizens of California
gathered petitions to force a return of the surplus, and to establish a
long-term plan to reduce the overall tax burden of our people on a
permanent, ongoing basis.
This is Proposition 1, the tax limit initiative you have been hearing
about and which will appear on the ballot in the special election
November 6. This initiative is a result of our task force on tax
reduction in which one of your own members, Bob Durr, has been very active
They would not even let us put this measure on the ballot through
the legislative process, even though constitutional amendments are
routinely offered almost every session- and just as routinely approved.
There is a basic and fundamental philosophic difference dividing us
today. Some of us believe that if the people get the chance to vote on a
revenue limit, it is possible the days of runaway government at the state
level will be over for good.
We are opposed by those who want government to draw up its shopping
list and then tell the people how much it will cost.
Right now, state government has the unlimited power to take an ever
increasing percentage of what you and every other citizen earns.
Government does not have to live within a reasonable budget, as every
family in California must do.
I do not believe I would be called unreasonable if I suggest that
the people of California want lower cost government. But the people and
groups opposing Proposition 1 apparently have not received that simple
message. They have launched a desperate counterattack against the idea
of having government of the people, by the people and for the people.
- 2 -
Insurance Agents
They have tried to confuse the issue with all manner of dire
predictions. To hear them tell it, there will be financial chaos if the
people are permitted to tell government how much of their earnings it
can take.
The purchasing power of a pre-war dollar is now worth less than
33 cents and the value keeps shrinking every day.
Government spending and government deficits helped cause this
inflation and some of the so-called 'economic' experts opposing
Proposition 1 were architects of these inflationary policies.
Indeed, those who have mobilized against Proposition 1 recently
listed several economists who, it was said, were allowing their names to
be used as opposing our tax limitation proposal. Many of them have been
governmental advisors over the past decades, and as such, responsible
for the economic policies of planned inflation, redistribution of
earnings and use of taxation as an economic weapon.
One was an advisor to West Germany on that country's fiscal problems
after World War II.
The advice was for more and bigger government, deficit spending and
similar economic theories. West Germany listened to this advice and then
came the economic miracle of prosperity that amazed the world. Later the
miracle was explained. They had listened to the advice and then done
just the opposite.
Another of the critics of Proposition 1 has constantly advocated
more and bigger government. According to his view, the people have the
curious idea they should spend the money they earn for things they want,
a new car, a color TV, an insurance policy---anything they decide should
be their major spending priority. He thinks otherwise. He believes
government should spend more of the people's earnings because government
can do it more intelligently than the people can.
When you deal in fact, you can come to only one conclusion: high
taxes are slowly crippling this free economy of ours and unless we do
something about it, we are headed for the biggest economic bellyache
America has ever known.
#####
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,
or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by
the above quotes).
- 3 -
x
10/15
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
RELEASE: Tuesday A.Ms.
Sacramento, California 95814
October 16, 1973
Ed Gray, Press Secretary
916-445-4571
10-15-73
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
RELEASE
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
CALIFORNIA ORDER OF THE EASTERN STAR
SACRAMENTO
October 15, 1973
"It is an honor to be with you this evening for your 100th annual
session.
Every now and then, I have an opportunity to speak with some of your
Masonic youth groups, the DeMolay, Job's Daughters and the Rainbow Girls.
Each time I do, I come away with greater faith in young Americans.
And I am very familiar with your other good works, scholarship funds,
the home for the aged and the cancer funds you support.
Long before women's liberation became a byword in our country, your
group and others like you were working quietly and diligently to improve
our society, our state and our country.
Because of those efforts, this is a better state and country, a
better society for everyone.
Solving problems through private, voluntary action is part of
i
America's tradition. Those critics who continually denounce America as
a sick, materialistic society, should become a little better acquainted
with the truth.
And the truth is, the work of volunteer groups throughout our
country represent the very heart and soul of America. They have helped
make this the most compassionate, generous and humane society that ever
existed on the face of this earth.
This year, Americans will donate almost $25 billion of their earnings
for charitable, religious and educational activities. In the past 10
years, our people have given almost $150 billion to their churches, to
private charities, to scholarship funds, to schools and similar
activities.
No one is required to do any of this. But private philanthropy
is part of America's heritage. It is the generous response of a
generous people to those in need.
If these kinds of activities ever do become solelya concern of
government, administered and controlled not by volunteers, but by a
bureaucracy, we will have lost something very special and very precious.
Even with today's excessive level of taxation, our people still
voluntarily share their income with thousands and thousands of private
programs designed to help their fellow citizens. I do not believe our
people will ever lose this generosity, this desire to lend a helping hand.
Eastern Star
But the sheer size of the present tax burden in California and our
nation makes it more and more difficult for private philanthropy to
survive.
I am sure you knew I would get to the subject of taxes before too
long. I make no apology for that. The tax burden in America today is
probably the most pressing economic problem we have to solve.
You are concerned with high prices, particularly food prices, but by
far the biggest cost item to the American family today is government.
Decades of political demagoguery politicians telling us someone
else can be made to pay our share have spread a network of hidden and
half hidden taxes over everything we buy or do.
Some are trying to cloud the issue and pretend the whole matter of
taxes is being exaggerated, but in this case the figures speak for
themselves.
Last year, the total earnings of the people of California amounted tc
$102.2 billion. And the people of California paid $45.7 billion for
government. That is almost half, just a fraction of a percent less than
45 cents out of every dollar earned.
Government in the United States at every level has been on a long
financial drunk. We are in the first stages of the hangover: inflation
and debasement of the dollar. And we are beset by helpful souls who
would have us believe that what we need is more of what got us into this
condition to begin with.
For a look at where we will be if we do not sober up in a hurry, hark
back to Germany of the 1920s. Workers were given time off every two hours
to spend their earnings before the value of their money dropped. Germans
carried 50,000 mark notes for lunch money. And that wild inflation bought
them finally, an Adolf Hitler.
We have more than a few financial quacks still telling us we can
shift the burden around and get more money from the federal government,
or the state or at the local level, depending on where the quack is when
he is talking. But whether the funds are federal, state or local, they
come out of the same pocket yours. And right now it is time to start
reducing what all governments are taking out of that pocket.
You know, of course, that a special election has been called for
November 6 to vote on a single issue Proposition 1. It is nothing more
or less than an effort to reduce that 45 cents government is taking out
of each dollar you earn.
- 2 -
Eastern Star
I have been asked why I sponsored a measure to reduce and limit
taxes at the state level, since the state (in our case) is the least of
the three tax villains.
That is true. In fact, both federal and local governments in
California are bigger tax spenders than the state. But the answer as to
why I chose to limit state taxes is very simple. I am not in the federal
or local government, I am governor of California. So we will try to do
something about state taxes and hope the idea will spread.
For almost seven years now, we have been whittling away at the size
and cost of state government. "Cut, squeeze, and trim" has been the
trademark of our administration. And for seven years, all the controversy
in Sacramento has been over our efforts to save money. You cannot recall
an instance in which we were being critized for trying to spend money---
only for trying to save it.
Confrontation between two contrasting views of government has taken
place between those who believe in tax and tax--spend and spend and those
of us who believe government can feed on taxes and grow beyond the consent
of the governed.
Those who are opposed to Proposition 1 have played a major roll in
adding a billion dollars in new spending to the budgets of these past
seven years. When I blue-pencilled that billion dollars out of the
budgets they tried (unsuccessfully) to override my vetoes. In addition
to the budget increases they sought, they have passed individual spending
bills which would have increased state spending another billion dollars.
This, too, was vetoed.
Two years ago, over their opposition, we adopted the most
comprehensive welfare reforms ever attempted anywhere. Welfare caseloads
were increasing 40,000 a month, but those who would increase spending said
local property taxes would go up and county general relief would increase.
Today, there are 365,000 fewer people on welfare, county general relief
has gone down and 45 counties have lowered their property tax.
Without the blue-pencilling, the vetoing and the welfare reforms, our
$9 billion budget would now be more than $12 billion. And yet we are told
we do not need a limit on taxing power or spending. They opposed returning
to the taxpayers the $800 million surplus our economies and welfare savings
produced. When Proposition 1 qualified for the ballot, they hastily voted
to return the surplus to the people to lessen the attractiveness of
Proposition 1.
- 3 -
Eastern Star
In the closing 48 hours of this legislative session, more than 700
bills were passed and sent to my desk---most of them in a 21-hour all
night session that went on until 6 a.m. You would have had to see the
confusion to believe it.
There was no reading of the bills in the scramble to close the
session and go home. Amendments were made with few even knowing what
they contained.
Among the bills were spending measures that would have added $253
million to this year's budget, and $350 million next year. Had these not
been vetoed, we would now be faced with an immediate tax increase instead
of asking you to vote yourself a tax cut. Of course, none of the authors
of those spending measures pointed out that they would require new taxes.
That is how government grew to its present size and how it will
continue to grow. As an example, in this recent session a bill was
proposed that would by itself have increased spending $400 million to
begin with, increasing to almost $1 billion in just four years. Again,
there was no mention of the tax increase that would have to accompany
such an increase in spending.
Why should a legislator or a congressman be allowed to introduce a
spending measure without at the same time proposing a tax measure to pay
for it? Too many politicians want the credit for giving something to
someone, but do not want to face the unpleasant truth that for someone
to get something he has not earned, someone else must earn something he
does not get.
I am sure you have a concern that government must be capable of
fulfilling its legitimate responsibilities. Therefore, you want to know
at what sacrifice have we made our economies. In these several years,
when so much spending has been vetoed, we have at the same time provided
increased support for education almost three times as much as inflation
and the increase in enrollment put together.
Our support of community mental health care centers has gone from
$18 million to $140 million. We have increased welfare payments to
those who really need our help by 30 percent.
The state scholarship fund is almost eight times as big as it was
seven years ago.
California state government is operating better than it ever has and
two-thirds of our budget is committed to local government support. Six
years ago it was only one-half.
- 4 -
Eastern Star
But we are proposing Proposition 1 because the total income of the
people of California has been going up an average of 7½ percent a year
for the last 20 years, while the state's spending has increased 10
percent a year.
More than a year ago, I appointed a task force to find a solution to
this, since six years of cut, squeeze and trim was obviously not an answer
The task force asked help from the Department of Economic Affairs at UCLA
(one of the best such departments in the country).
The reaction was astounding. These men, all experts in their field,
were delighted to help. They said they had given up hope that any
government would take this problem on. Through them, the foremost
economists in the country from government universities and colleges all
over the nation were recruited to help. It was their consensus that
government spending was out of control in America and that the runaway
must be stopped or our entire economic system was in mortal peril.
Proposition 1 is the result of their research lasting almost a year.
It is a fail safe plan to gradually reduce the percentage of the people's
earnings now being taken by the state without curtailing state services
or support for local governments. Indeed, it insures ample funds for new
programs and innovations.
Do not be taken in by the consortium of lobbyists, politicans and
big spenders (of your money) who have mobilized to defeat this plan by
any and every means. They are not opposing Proposition 1 because they
fear it will not work. They know it will work. That is why they are
against it. They know it takes away their right to a blank check signed
in advanced by the taxpayers. They would have you believe it is a tax
shift; that we will reduce taxes at our level and raise them at another.
That is not what they really think or why they are opposed. Quite the
contrary, they know that Proposition 1 is a tax cut period. That it
will begin cutting your taxes January 1, and keep on cutting them over
the next 15 years. In five years the sales tax, for example, can be
reduced a full penny. In 10 years, by two pennies, or there can be a
60 percent cut in the income tax, or a combination of the two. They know
also that it will put in your hands the right to limit the percentage of
your income that government can take without your permission.
- 5 -
Eastern Star
They would have you believe Proposition 1 is too complex for you to
understand. Well, they understand it very well. That is why they are
screaming. The only thing complex about it is the legal language that
was necessary to close loopholes so future big spenders could not get
around it. That did take a few thousand words, for those who sup at the
public trough have developed the instinct of self survival to a
remarkable degree.
A moment ago, I said they would resort to any means to defeat this
once in a life time taxpayers opportunity. In the literature being
ground out by a slick public relations firm is the charge that Proposition
1 makes it easier to increase local taxes. Some local government
officials are opposing Proposition 1 for the very opposite reason they
say Proposition 1 makes it harder to raise local taxes.
If they really think 45 cents out of each dollar earned is not too
much, will they tell us how much is too much?
Would they put a limit on taxes at say 50 cents 55cents 60
cents? Some economists predict government will be taking 60 cents in ten
years and 67 cents in 15---if a free economy can survive such a tax load.
If the critics agree with the rest of us that taxes are too high now,
will they tell us why they continue to add more and more spending and
how they intend to reduce taxes?
On November 6, the taxpayers and the tax spenders will go to the
polls. We know the tax spenders will vote no. What will the taxpayers
do? I know one thing---if the people vote no every politician will take
it as a vote for more spending. The lid will be off.
A yes vote will tell them the binge is over.
#####
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,
or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by
the above quotes).
- 6 -
**
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
RELEASE: P.Ms. FRIDAY
Sacramento, California 95814
October 19, 1973
Ed Gray, Press Secretary
916-445-4571
10-19-73
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
RELEASE
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
COMMONWEALTH CLUB OF CALIFORNIA
San Francisco
October 19, 1973
Once again it is a pleasure to appear before this very distinguished
forum. Of course, there is not much left for me to talk about. Two weeks
ago you were addressed by a speaker who told you all you need to know
about Proposition 1, the Revenue Control and Tax Reduction plan you will
be voting on November 6. In fact, he explained it with all the enthusiasm
George III would have used in interpreting the Declaration of Independence.
There does seem to be a little controversy over Proposition 1. It
is absolutely untrue, however, that if Proposition 1 passes it will rain
on all the 49er home games. That is about the only thing our opponents
have not said would happen. There is one thing the Speaker and I agree
about this is the single most important election ever held in California-
perhaps in the nation.
If the people vote no on November 6, it will be taken as a go ahead
by every big spending politician in America. They will decide the people
are not concerned about taxes and the lid will be off on government
spending. A "yes" vote could start a wave that would dampen the urge to
spend at the local level and in Washington.
As you are well aware, ours has not been known as a spendthrift
administration. Seven years ago when we started, I had a belief that
government could be run on the same rules and principles that apply to
the running of a business or even a home. That belief has been confirmed.
We have cut, squeezed and trimmed; when there were surpluses as a result
of those cuts we returned those surpluses to the people in the form of
bonuses or rebates. Now it has become possible to reduce taxes on an
ongoing basis. But we have not neglected those functions which are
properly government's responsibility. We have doubled the California
Highway Patrol and it has taken over policing of the freeways, freeing
local police for crime fighting duties. We have one of the lowest fatality
rates of any major state. A California freeway is one of the safest places
to drive in the United States. We have increased support of local mental
health to seven times what it was. The state scholarship fund is almost
e ight times as great. And state support for public schools has increased
92 percent while enrollment has gone up less than 6 percent.
- 1 -
Commonwealth Club
None of these increases in spending met with resistance in Sacramento
But the economies that made these increases possible were opposed
vehemently and our rebates of the surpluses brought hysterical charges
that fiscal chaos would be the result of such foolishness.
We did not have it any easier with the property tax reform which
will be evident later this month when you get your tax bill. Additional
savings for senior citizens have been adopted, renters have been given
tax credits and the inventory tax has been cut in half. We have even
cut bridge tolls 11 times.
Before we get too upset by the dire predictions of what will follow
passage of Proposition 1, maybe we had better recall what the same people
were saying about our welfare reforms and what catastrophy would follow
their adoption. I am sure you remember welfare reform.
Our projected reduction in caseload was challenged by the
legislative analyst. He said our budget was out of balance. We were
told that a tax increase of more than $700 million was an absolute must.
We disputed all those predictions, including his claim that our welfare
reforms would increase local property taxes because general county relief
caseloads would go up.
Our own welfare caseload was increasing by 40,000 a month when we
started our reforms. Today, there are 365,000 fewer people on welfare.
We did not have a $700 million tax increase or deficit we
had
a
surplus; county relief went down, not up; 42 counties reduced their basic
property taxes last year and 45 have done so this year.
I submit we have some grounds for challenging those same people who
now are predicting fiscal chaos and increased local property taxes if
Proposition 1 is passed.
I have told you all this because it really sets the stage for the
issue involved in Proposition 1. There is a fundamental philosophy in-
volved over the role government is supposed to play in the lives of our
people. On November 6, we will be choosing between government by the
consent of the people and government ruling the people through the power
of taxation.
But this is not a partisan issue even though the opponents of
Proposition 1 have tried to portray it as such. Some distinguished
Democrats are volunteers on the citizens committee in support of the
initiative. This week a half dozen Democratic members of the Los Angeles
City Council joined their colleagues in voting to endorse Proposition 1.
The dean of the state Senate, who for 30 years has been a member and now
is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Democratic Senator Randy
Collier, announced his support of Proposition 1 and his belief that it
was a last chance to halt runaway spending.
Commonwealth Club
No one can stand before you and deny that excessive government
spending is the direct cause of inflation. And no one can deny that when
government's excesses are restrained, inflation is curbed. In the six
years before our cut, squeeze and trim administration, California's rate
of inflation was higher than the national rate. In five out of the last
six years, inflation has been lower in California than in the rest of the
nation.
There is an almost geometric inverse relationship between taxes and
inflation. The pre-war dollar is now worth less than 33 cents and yet
government has increased the share of total personal income it is taking
from 15 percent in 1930 to almost 45 percent today.
Last year the total earnings of the people of California amounted to
$102.2 billion. Of that amount the people of California paid $45.7
billion as their share of the cost of government federal, state and
local.
If the historic trend of the last few decades continues uninterrupted
in 15 years, government will be taking 67 percent if a free economy can
survive a tax burden that tops two thirds of the people's earnings.
We appointed a task force last year to find a way to provide
permanent, lasting tax relief for our citizens. This task force was
unique in that it included some of this country's most distinguished
economists, men like Dr. Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago,
Peter Drucker of Claremont College, Roger Freeman of the Hoover Institute,
C. Lowell Harris of Columbia University and the Tax Foundation, Dr. James
Buchanan of Virginia Polytechnic Institutue. Since Proposition 1 was
announced, literally dozens of economists from all over America, hearing
of it, have volunteered to help secure its passage.
They are convinced that government spending is out of control in
this country and unless it is brought under some degree of reasonable
restraint, we can never hope to halt inflation or solve our other economic
problems.
For two generations, we have been drifting toward almost total
government control of our economic life because government has been taking
a larger and larger percentage of the people's income.
I have been asked why should I be so concerned? After all, federal
and local taxes take most of it, far more than the state does. That is
true. But I am not in federal government, or in local government. I am
part of the government of California. So what is wrong with doing
something to slow down the growth of big government at the state level?
Commonwealth Club
If we find an answer that works, maybe the idea will spread as it
did when we took on runaway welfare.
The federal government has adopted our welfare program and is urging
other states to implement it. They have even recruited some of our
California team to help them do it.
I make no apology for wanting California to be first in reducing
taxes, systematically and permanently, without curtailing essential
services or denying government new revenues to meet new problems that
might arise in the future.
Proposition 1 provides for all this at the same time it slowly
reduces the percentage of your income government can take in taxes
without your consent.
There is a provision for emergencies, a reserve fund, and plenty of
room for legitimate growth in the budget. Next year, for example, under
the revenue limit, California can have a budget $600 million higher than
the present budget, if it is decided we need that much of an increase.
Spending for education, for mental health, for law enforcement, fire
protection and all other essential needs is guaranteed by a built-in
fail-safe system which provides that the limit or ceiling can never fall
below what is necessary to provide the present level of services adjusted
upward to meet growth and inflation.
The percentage by which your tax burden is reduced each year is set
aside in a surplus and can only be spent in one way---it must be returned
to the taxpayers as a rebate or in the form of a tax cut.
Why should government be permitted the unlimited power to increase
taxes faster than the increase in your earnings? For 20 years or so,
California's total earnings have increased 7½ percent a year. State
Government costs have gone up 10 percent each year.
Proposition 1 may be a new and radical idea to politicians, but it
should not be to you. Every day of your life you have to live within
your income or go bankrupt. Government has been balancing its budget by
unbalancing yours. Proposition 1 simply takes away the politician's right
to a blank check bearing your signature.
We asked the legislative leaders to put this initiative on the ballot
last spring and to return in a one-time rebate the $800 million surplus.
They flatly refused.
So we had to take this matter to the people and we had to act fast
over a billion dollars worth of ways to spend the $800 million had been
proposed.
Commonwealth Club
We qualified the initiative in one of the shortest time spans in
history.
Only after the people claimed the right to vote on it and the
special election was called, did the leaders of the legislative majority
decide they would return the surplus to the people after all. They were
very frank about the reason for their change of hearts. They wanted to
take some of the attractiveness away from Proposition 1. Giving back
the rebate was, in their eyes, the lesser of two evils. So you can
thank Proposition 1 for having already given you a six months suspension
of 1 cent of sales tax and about a $400 million rebate in this year's
income tax.
As I have already said, our attempts at saving money have aroused
opposition. So I expected a battle over this proposal to limit taxes,
but even so, I am afraid I was not prepared for the shrill hysteria and
ferocity of those who rallied to protect their place at the public trough
They have resorted to falsehood, distortion and scare tactics
claiming all kinds of dire results if this limitation plan should be
approved, even though the specifics of the plan actually make impossible
the things they say will happen. A slick public relations firm grinds
out advertising that would have them up before the Better Business Bureau
if they were selling soap.
Here is an example a pamphlet: "Proposition 1 is based on an
egghead theory that if you place a limit on state expenditures, your
total taxes eventually will be reduced." Now
you know
somehow that
does not seem so eggheady. There are some people who have to admit that
2 and 2 is 4 but they resent it.
Under a heading of "What Proposition Number 1 offers you" they go
on to say, "Not one word to guarantee your taxes would be reduced." And
yet Proposition 1 specifically states that each year for 15 years the
percentage of your earnings government can spend must be reduced and the
money not spent must be returned to you, the people, in either a refund
or a tax cut.
Nothing reveals the blatant dishonesty of this campaign propaganda
more than this statement "Proposition 1 authorizes the legislature
to permit local income taxes to be levied by any governmental unit from
counties to mosquito abatement districts." Right now the legislature
has the authority to permit such a tax by a simple majority vote.
Proposition 1 will change that to require a two-thirds vote.
- 5 -
Commonwealth Club
You have been told Proposition 1 is so complicated the people cannot
understand it, but those who tell you this understand it. And because
they understand it, they are against it. They know it is a tax cut, not
a tax shift. It begins cutting your taxes on January 1 and continues to
cut them for a number of years to come. They know too, that Proposition
1 says to the big spenders of your money: "You no longer have a blank
check. From now on you cannot confiscate the fruit of our toil above
the limit we have set, without our permission."
In a recent article the Speaker of the Assembly asked: "Are we
ready to trade a flexible and responsive system we command for one with
an automatic pilot over which we have no control?" That "flexible and
responsive system" is government's unlimited ability to tax; to meet not
only government's needs but whatever else government wants. And the "we"
he says commands this system is the government in Sacramento. The
"automatic pilot" he finds so unacceptable because that "we" cannot
control it, is the people of California.
Have we forgotten in these decades of more and more government that
government can have no power except that voluntarily granted it by the
people? Did the people ever intend that government should have the
right to all we earn? Have the people SC lost confidence in their
ability to govern themselves they are willing to give that power to some
chosen elite in the marble halls of government?
How have those who "command that flexible, responsive system" done
as "commanders?" Seven years ago, this state was virtually insolvent.
There was a fraudulent budget basing 12 months spending on 15 months
revenue. The teachers retirement system was an unfunded liability of
$4 billion hanging over the taxpayers of the state. The great state
water project was underfunded. Over these seven years, while we were
cutting, squeezing and trimming, those who now oppose Proposition 1
(many of whom had a hand in the previous fiscal irresponsibility)
continued to urge new spending! A billion dollars was added to the
budgets we submitted. Another billion and a half dollars was passed and
sent to my desk in separate legislation.
In the last 48 hours of the session just ended, more than 750 bills
were passed, one every two minutes. An all day, all night scene of
confusion became a burlesque of the Democratic process. Legislators who
left the chamber returned to find they had been recorded as voting for
measures while they were gone. When responsible legislators protested
the farce, they were gaveled down and declared out of order. Bills were
amended with no reading of the amendments.
Commonwealth Club
And among the bills were spending measures adding $253 million to
the present budget, increasing to $350 million in added costs next year.
No revenue bill was submitted, but those bills would have required an
immediate tax increase.
That is the record of those who would have you believe that what we
are proposing will cause fiscal chaos. Given their way, the budget
would be more than $12 billion.
Instead, we blue-pencilled and vetoed.
The teacher's retirement system is now funded on a sound actuarial
basis. The water program has been virtually completed without having to
seek additional funding. The state is not only solvent, it has achieved
an $800 million surplus and an ongoing surplus---making possible a tax
cut. There has been no increase in government size even though there has
been a 30 to 40 percent work load increase. I believe we are not too
presumptuous in suggesting that, on the record, we have a right to ask
your support for this proposal to limit government's taxing power.
You have been told of all the organizations who oppose Proposition 1.
They are all listed on this pamphlet. With but a few exceptions, they
are organizations with a vested interest in government having unlimited
funds. For the most part, the livelihood of their constituents is
derived from government.
You have been told the League of Cities opposes Proposition 1 but
this week the Los Angeles City Council voted to join the list of cities
endorsing Proposition 1.
You have been told Proposition 1 will somehow be harmful to
education, but the state Board of Education endorses it. The president
of the San Francisco School Board, Dr. Hopp, supports it and the Secondary
and Elementary Teachers Association of Los Angeles endorse it.
You have been told it will increase local property taxes, but the
Apartment House Owners Association supports it and the California Real
Estate Association, which has been fighting for a decade to lower property
taxes, is working for its passage.
The Farm Bureau and the Cattlemen's Association support it. The
Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Independent Business supports it.
The California Taxpayers Association and the United Taxpayers Association
endorse it.
From all over the United States, scores of the most distinguished and
respected economists have written offering their support. All endorse
Proposition 1 as a sensible, workable plan for halting runaway spending
by government.
Commonwealth Club
This is not some radical hair brain scheme marking á departure from
our representative form of government. It makes no change whatsoever in
the balance between the branches of government. It is a restoration of
our traditional concept of constitutional government, wherein the people
ensure that we are governed by laws not by men. Was it Burke who said:
"Never give any power to your best friend that you wouldn't give to your
worst enemy?" Our Founding Fathers told us not to place our trust in men,
but to bind their hands with the chains of a Constitution.
If 45 cents out of the working man's dollar is not too big a share
for government to take will our opponents tell us how much is too much?
Will they state where they would place a limit? At 55 cents 60 cents
65 cents? If they agree with us as some profess to, that 45 cents is too
much, .then what is their proposal for reducing the burden?
Ladies and Gentlemen, on November 6 the tax spenders fiercely
guarding their place at the trough will go to the polls and vote no.
What of the taxpayers? For the first time in the history of government
anywhere they have a chance to vote to limit government's power to tax
and spend.
Taxpayers vote yes there may not be another chance. As the
Speaker said, this is the most important election ever held.
######
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,
or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by
the above quotes).
- 8 -
%
124
Date
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
RELEASE: P.Ms. WEDNESDAY
Sacramento, California 95814
OCTOBER 24, 1973
Ed Gray, Press Secretary
916-445-4571
10-23-73
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
RELEASE
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
SAN FRANCISCO
October 24, 1973
As many of you know, our Local Government Reform Task Force has held
a series of retreats for administrators and local government officials.
The Council on Intergovernmental Relations has been holding its hearings;
our task force has been busy gathering your responses to questions in the
various areas being studied.
Three advisory committees have been established, and these are
largely composed of officials representing local government.
The information gathering process is nearing a conclusion. And the
task force is beginning the process of evaluating what has been heard
from you and what our own people have learned about the problems and the
suggestions you have made to improve local government.
I want to thank all of you who are participating in the work of the
task force for your time and effort, and reaffirm to you that our goal is
a stronger and more responsive local government, better equipped to meet
its responsibilities.
The reforms we seek will not simply impose another layer of
government. Our goal is the best possible government at the least
possible cost.
Many of the problems you have are problems we face at the state level
Because yours is the branch of government closest to the people, we
want you to be strong enough to deal with these problems. One area in
which we share a common interest is that of collective bargaining
involving public employees. I believe my position on this is well known.
I support the concept of local control of labor negotiations
involving local government. And I am opposed to any action on the part
of a higher branch of government that would interfere with or diminish
the authority of locally-elected officials to handle their own labor
negotiations.
Wisdom in government is not a one-way street that always runs
downhill. More often, the higher up the ladder of government you go, the
less common sense you find.
In all our separate jurisdictions we derive our ultimate authority
from the people. And we have an obligation to make sure that in carrying
out our responsibilities, we do so at a price they can afford,
League of Cities
In discussing Proposition 1 our revenue control and tax reduction
plan---I realize that the leadership of your organization is on record in
opposition.
I know some of you have already made up your minds. I also know
that you are an association composed of individuals.
You are businessmen and professional people and only part time
government officials. And with the pay scales of city councilmen what
they are, I know darn well that many of you are giving a lot more to
government than you are receiving. And all of you are taxpayers.
For the past seven years, I have hoped that we could operate state
government in a way that would not add to your problems.
When we reformed welfare, you will recall, there were gloomy
predictions that it would shift costs to the counties and their general
relief rolls would go up. The legislative analyst said we were over-
estimating the savings from welfare and he predicted a $700 million
deficit, which since we cannot print money in the basement, would have
required a state tax increase.
Since our reforms were the result of a year long task force study,
we had confidence in our projections as to caseload, cost and impact on
counties.
Now we have had the reforms for two years. When we started, the
caseload was going up 40,000 a month. Today there are 365,000 fewer
people on welfare than when we started. County general relief has gone
down.
Forty-two counties reduced their basic tax rates last year---and 45
counties did the same this year.
The same gloomy forecasts were made in property tax reform. Many of
those now opposing Proposition 1, including the League of Women Voters,
opposed last year's property tax and school finance reform.
Yet because of that reform, homeowners have their property tax
exemption increased to $1,750; school tax rates are being rolled back in
districts throughout the state and the people will see the results of
these reductions on this year's tax bills---if they already have not had
their mortgage payments reduced.
Our schools are now getting the greatest single year increase of
state support in history.
At the same time, we adopted a statute requiring the state to pick
up the cost of any new service that is mandated on local government.
In the past, you are well aware of how often federal or state
government has simply started up a new program and told you to pick up
all or part of the tab.
League of Cities
Proposition 1 includes safeguards against that happening in the
future.
-First, it puts into the Constitution the requirement that the state
pay for any new or expanded programs it mandates on local government.
--The legislature would have to approve an appropriation to cover
these increased costs.
--The property tax relief the state is financing would be fully
protected. In fact, the protection will be strengthened by Proposition 1.
The legislature will retain the same authority it has now to adjust
the tax structure, to close loopholes.
But it would not have the unlimited power to increase the net tax
burden of the people, without their permission. That is the whole
purpose of Proposition 1:
--To cut taxes now, at a time when we have a surplus and to
gradually, over a period of 15 years, make it possible to reduce the
percentage of the people's income taken in state taxes.
Over the past 20 years, state government spending has grown 10
percent a year while the earnings of the people have only gone up 7½
percent a year.
Obviously, this imbalance cannot continue without coming to a day
when government will be confiscating all the fruit of our toil and right
now we are almost half way there. Government at all levels federal,
state and local---is taking about 45 cents out of every dollar earned
in California.
Proposition 1 has built-in safeguards to allow state revenues to
grow in number of dollars at the same time taxes take a declining
percentage of total personal income. This simply means that, over a
period of 15 years, the increases in state government costs will be
brought into balance with the increase in personal income.
That is not very complicated. In your personal finances or in your
business you have to live within your income or wind up bankrupt.
For too long, government has been balancing its budget by unbalancing
yours.
When I outlined this tax reduction plan to you last spring, I had
already asked the legislature to put it on the ballot for a vote of the
people. It is almost a routine action to permit the people to vote on
Constitutional Amendments. But this year we had a budget surplus and this
Constitutional Amendment proposed to give it back.
- 3 -
League of Cities
We ran into a basic difference in philosophy with some of the
legislative leadership. They had other ideas on what to do with the
surplus.
The idea of giving back the surplus suddenly occurred to them after
the people qualified Proposition 1 for the November 6 ballot.
Giving it back became the lesser of two evils because it took some
of the attraction away from Proposition 1.
Because Proposition 1 qualified for the ballot, a penny of sales
tax is being suspended for six months.
Because of Proposition 1, there will be a rebate of this year's
income tax, ranging from 100 percent at the lower end of the earning scale
to 20 percent at the top.
The differences between those who are urging a "yes" vote on
Proposition 1 and the opponents are not partisan differences. The
Democratic chairman of the state Senate Finance Committee, Senator Randy
Collier, issupporting this reasonable plan to bring the cost of
government under reasonable control.
Contrary to what you may have been told, this does not pit one level
of government against another. The Los Angeles City Council, the largest
city in our state, has endorsed Proposition 1.
The critics say it will hurt education, although with this limit in
effect we can triple our spending for education in 15 years. They imply
that education in toto is against it. It is true that the governing
bodies of a number of school employee organizations have taken official
positions opposed. But organizations such as the state Board of Education,
the Professional Educators, a number of local school boards and individuals
the president of the San Francisco School Board and scores of scholars on
our University campuses are enthusiastically supporting it.
Earlier this week, a distinguished group of city and local officials
headed by Los Angeles Supervisor, Pete Schabarum, came out strongly in
favor of this plan which they said would reduce the total tax burden of
our people without curtailing services.
We are asking you to vote "yes" to cut taxes beginning with the 7½
percent income tax cut starting January 1. Those who want you to vote
"no" intend for government to continue having a blank check drawn on the
people's earnings.
You have been told this plan will raise local property taxes. But
the statewide Homeowners Association, the Apartment House Owners
Association and the California Real Estate Association, all of whom have
research facilities and staff and all of whom have been fighting to reduce
property taxes for years, heartily endorse Proposition 1.
League of Cities
You have been told this tax plan favors the wealthy. But it
permanently eliminates state income taxes for every family earning
$8,000 a year or less.
The distortions and scare claims they have raised are the same kind
of claims they made about welfare reform. And they have been proved
wrong.
They were wrong about the welfare caseloads. They were wrong when
they said local property taxes would go up. They are wrong now.
The real issue in Proposition 1, which they refuse to even mention,
is the ability of a free economy to survive a staggering tax burden
which no other society in all history has ever been able to survive.
The opposition claims they, of course, a re concerned about high
taxes they just object to the plan we have proposed. That is what they
said about welfare reforms but somehow they never came up with a plan
of their own. If they agree that 45 cents out of a working man's earned
dollar is too much, what do they intend to do about it And why have
they tried to increase state spending by more than $2.5 billion in these
last few years? In the closing hours of the session just ended, they
passed and sent to my desk $253 million in increased spending to be
added to the present budget. Had I signed those bills, we would have had
to have an immediate tax increase. But they did not mention that.
If they do not believe 45 cents is too much for government to take,
and their every action gives evidence that is what they really think,
they just do not believe the truth would be very good campaign strategy.
Is there a point at which they would agree there should be a limit ?
And what would that limit be?
We are told by the economists most involved with counseling
government and business that government's share of our earnings will be
as much as 67 percent in 15 years. If our economy can last 15 years under
the ever-increasing tax burden. Where will our opponents set their
ceiling at 50 cents---55 cents---60 cents?
Not too long ago, the opposition came up with a few economists of
t heir own which they announced with great fanfare. Thesilence since has
been deafening. It seems their economists came too close to letting the
cat out of the bag. They made it clear they favor using the taxing power
of government to give government greater control over the earnings of the
people. One of them has written a book expressing his belief that
government should take more in taxes because government can spend the
money more wisely than the people can.
League of Cities
Another, quoted as an authority on government financial affairs,
was a chief architect of the federal policies the unbalanced budgets,
the income tax surcharges, the guns and butter philosophy that helped
cause the inflation and high tax burden we have now. He has been quoted
as saying he did not believe the American taxpayer was being "squeezed
dry" by taxes.
On our side, we have unsolicited letters from more than 40 of the
great economists of the nation offering to help in any way they can.
Paul McCracken, former chairman of the President's Economic Advisory
Board, now at University of Michigan, has written: "the political process
is unable to exercise the discipline necessary to keep taxes from
increasing faster than the people's earnings."
Dr. C. Lowell Harris of Columbia University: "one of the greatest
needs in American government today is control of the growth of spending.'
Dr. Martin Anderson of the Hoover Institute at Stanford says: "this plan
offers the people of California a clear opportunity to not only stop the
increasing tax burden but also to reverse it. It is a truly innovative,
sensible tax reform plan. It will mean more money in the pockets of
Californians to be spent for things they personally value and less money
for government bureaucrats to dissipate." He goes on to say that
Proposition "may be the only viable alternative to keep us from a
future fiscal crisis that could severely damage each and every one of us.
Politics makes strange bedfellows. Last year, both the Assembly
Speaker and I criticized the distortion of the campaign waged against
the coastline initiative. He happened to be for Proposition 20 and I was
opposed. Nevertheless, I could not remain silent when the campaign firm
resorted to advertising which did not fairly present our case.
This year, the opposition to Proposition 1 is being directed by that
same campaign firm the Speaker so bitterly criticized just last year.
Only one of us is criticizing their use of false statements and distor-
tions this time.
I ask you not to be confused by the fraudulent charges and
imaginary calamities that are being dreamed up as substitutues for
rational debate.
Next year, the budget can go up $600 million, not down, and that
still leaves us with $460 million in federal revenue sharing. And still,
we would be within the limit prescribed by Proposition 1.
- 6 -
League of Cities
Four years ago, when I first began trying to get property tax
reform I was advised against it on political grounds. It was pointed out
that I would be increasing state taxes and the state budget in order to
reduce property taxes at the local level; that people would not under-
stand and I would be blamed for the budget increases. But you know and
I know that the homeowner (and to a lesser extent the renter) has been
bearing an unfair share of the tax burden. So we went ahead.
Last year we passed SB 90, increasing the sales tax to underwrite
homeowner and renter relif. SB 90 added almost a billion dollars to the
present budget. I am quite sure many people in California are not aware
that state spending did not increase that much that we simply shifted
some of the burden from the narrow based property tax to a broader based
state sales tax.
Having fought four years to make that shift, does it seem likely now
that I would be proposing a plan to reduce state taxes by shifting them
back to local government? A Senator who yearns to be governor is one who
makes this charge. We could have had property tax relief two years ago
if that Senator had voted for it and you will recall we only failed by
one vote that time.
Never has an issue been more clearly drawn. On one side are those
who react hysterically at the thought of anyone threatening their place
at the trough. On the other side are the people those we serve
caught up ina spiral of higher and higher prices they did not cause and
cannot cure. And by far the highest cost item in their entire budget
is the cost of government.
Proposition 1 is a tax cut, beginning January 1, with continuing
cuts over a period of years. Proposition 1 gives to the people the right
to say to state government "above that percentage of our earnings you
presently take in taxes, you cannot go without our permission." Provision
is made for emergencies. Protection is given to other levels of
government.
If the vote is "no" on November 6, it will be taken as a spending
mandate by politicians all across this land. They will say the people
do not care about taxes that they want more government spending.
A "yes" vote will serve notice that the people do care and even the
tax eaters in those puzzle palaces on the Potomac will have to take heed.
Government has never before offered its people such an opportunity. I
hope you will decide to be a part of this. There may never be another
chance.
######
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,
or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by
the above quotes).
- 7 -
61/11
-
Sacramento, California 95814
NOVEMBER 12, 1973
Ed Gray, Press Secretary
916-445-4571
11-9-73
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
RELEASE
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY OFFICIALS
LOS ANGELES
November 12, 1973
In recent years, most of us have become a great deal more concerned
about the necessity of protecting the environment, and we have been doing
something about it.
We have been trying to eliminate air pollution, clean up our water,
protect the scenery from unnecessary encroachment by construction
projects, including highways. Literally millions of dollars have been and
are being spent to fight smog, eliminate water pollution, and to otherwise
preserve and protect the environment against unnecessary intrusion by
the activities of man.
Any reasonable person would say that we have been moving vigorously
to do what we can to protect the environment in almost every activity
that could possibly contribute to pollution.
No one had to send us a message from Washington to tell us we had a
smog problem. It was a Californian who first discovered the origin of
smog and its link to automobile emissions. And California was the first
state to do something about it.
The smog control laws we have adopted at the state level are the
toughest in the nation. And they are getting progressively tougher, as
technical developments offer more opportunities to reduce air pollution.
We have been just as tough on other forms of pollution. We are
determined to clean up the air and the water and preserve the great
natural beauty of our state.
But it seems no matter how much we do, there is still a very active
fringe element in the environmental movement that never seems to be
satisfied. Orderly progress in solving this very complex problem, in a
way that does not paralyze the economy, is not enough.
There used to be an expression "stop the world, I want to get
off'
now it is a movement; they want to stop the world and put us off.
The voices of reason are being drowned out by the prophets of
calamity. A strange sort of no-growth, no development syndrome is
proposed without regard for the consequences this might have on the lives
of our people or the vitality of our economy.
There seems to be an organized, well-financed lobby determined to
preserve the natural habitat and comfort of every species except man.
Well, it is time to remember that we are ecology too.
Highway Officials
They can tell you how many bird's nests may have to be moved by a
freeway, down to the last piece of straw or mud. But they ignore the
fact that there are 208 million people in America, most of them in
cities and urban areas.
Contrary to what some might have you think, most of the daily
traffic we have in our urban areas is for a very necessary and practical
purpose.
Fifty million citizens drive their cars to work each day. And if
they are to maintain their prosperity, they must have highways and roads
to drive on. We must find the fuel and electric power to drive those
vehicles, along with the rapid transit systems we are trying to develop
to ease the burden on the private automobile and the roads.
America must have oil and power to heat and light the homes where
our people work, the schools their children attend, the hospitals that
heal the sick and the factories and industries which provide job
opportunities for our people.
It is high time we strike a more realistic and reasonable balance
between the need to protect the environment and the equally urgent need
to have an efficient, functioning transportation system, including
highways, with sufficient fuel to meet the needs of a modern industrial
economy.
Certainly, we are going to do all we can to eliminate pollution.
We must and we should seek cleaner fuels and engines that do not cause
smog. But while we are doing this, we must also consider the economic
needs of our people.
It will not do anyone much good to have a smogless car if there are
no roads to drive on or if they cannot get enough fuel to drive, either
because of a shortage or because it has become too expensive to operate
a car.
Right now, America is caught between two whirlwinds forcing
potentially massive disruptions in our society, the ffort to protect
the environment and the world wide energy shortage.
The way we solve these problems can drastically affect the way we
live, the transportation we use to get to and from work, even whether
some of our people will be working.
And if you think that is an exaggeration, you are well aware that
airlines have been forced to cancel flights because of a lack of fuel.
Airline crews have been laid off from their jobs.
Highway Officials
Some of the self-appointed guardians of the environment freely
predict that they will be able to create enough protest and controversy
that America will not be able to build any nuclear generating facilities.
And yet we know, if we do not develop nuclear energy, there will be
massive power shortages that can cause whole industries to shut down.
It may already be too late to avoid some brownouts.
Here in California, we have been trying to develop a rational
policy for determining nuclear generating sites for several years. Yet
there are those who apparently would prefer to close down schools and
hospitals, and industries, rather than move forward with reasonable
plans for providing our people the electric energy we need.
They never put it quite that bluntly. They prefer to suggest that
we can do without what they call luxuries, such as air-conditioned cars.
An air-conditioned car or home may be a luxury to someone who lives
in a colder climate. But it is not a luxury to someone who must live
and work in a desert climate.
Some of the policies being proposed would have a national impact,
even though the need for such drastic measures is really a major problem
only in a specific area.
Los Angeles has a much more complex smog problem than other areas
of the country. We have a geographic inversion problem that makes smog
far more difficult to control here.
And this may well require more stringent controls.
But should the things we must do here be imposed nationally?
Should the controls we need here be imposed on a small town in Montana?
Should America, in the name of preserving the environment, condemn
people to mass unemployment? Should the philosophy of no-growth impose
an environmental strait-jacket on our economy, through the adoption of
unrealistic restrictions and controls--by denying industry the fuel
and power it needs?
The fuel shortages we are currently experiencing result from many
factors: the growing demand for oil, the fact that we have not moved
as promptly as we could have in developing our known oil resources in
Alaska and in some offshore areas. But the higher cost of fuel can be
traced to a more basic reason.
No one has yet found a way to repeal the law of supply and demand.
Very simply, we have permitted the demand for oil to outrun the supply.
- 3 -
Highway Officials
Those who blocked construction of the Alaskan pipeline did so in the
name of the people. But the people they say they represent now must pay
higher and higher prices for fuel because our oil industry has not been
permitted to develop our available energy resources in a reasonable and
orderly way.
Everyone here is undoubtedly familiar with the program of the
Environmental Protection Agency. We have some reservations about some
of these plans and we have communicated our concern to Washington.
Because it is such a complex subject, it is not my purpose to dwell
on the particular guidelines that have been suggested, either for our
state or other areas.
But there is one element in many of these suggestions that I find
disturbing, unrealistic and decidedly unfair. That is the tendency to
apply economic sanctions, to impose an economic penalty as a major tool
in the effort to solve the pollution problem.
California already is far ahead of most of the rest of the nation in
adding technical devices to control smog. We have welcomed every
development that industry has come up with to control smog.
But now, in fairness to our people, in recognition of the realistic
limits of existing technology, it is time to start asking some very
serious questions, especially in view of the fuel shortage.
The California scientist who discovered smog has questioned whether
the catalytic converter might do more harm than good.
Even some researchers for the Environmental Protection Agency are
raising serious objections to this device, which is scheduled to be
introduced on 1975 automobiles in our state.
Should government mandate this type of device before these kinds of
serious reservations are fully resolved?
There is no doubt that smog control devices have helped reduce
automobile emissions where they have been required. But there is also no
dispute that in doing so, the automobile engines have required more fuel,
at a time when we face a fuel shortage.
Have we now reached a point of diminishing returns, where the
increased fuel consumption caused by some devices causes equal or even
more smog where the adverse impact outweighs the benefits?
We have heard proposals to drastically curtail automobile traffic,
even though some of them would mean a virtual paralysis of the economy
of the areas affected.
4
Worst of all, some of these solutions are not based on technical
advances that offer a realistic means of permanently eliminating air
pollution. They are temporary expedients, economic penalties that would
be imposed on those citizens who must drive their cars.
There have been suggestions that a surcharge be imposed for downtown
parking, for highes taxes on automobiles, for steps that would mean
higher gasoline prices to limit driving, even for gasoline rationing
itself.
All of those may help temporarily. But they are not permanent
solutions.
And most of them hit the average citizen where it hurts most, in
the pocket book.
We must do all that we can to eliminate air pollution and we must
encourage the technical development necessary to accomplish this.
But I do not believe the answer will be found in mandating
unnecessary new costs on the motorists, by forcing people out of their
cars because government makes it too expensive for the average citizen
to operate his own car.
The ultimate answer to air pollution is through technology. And
that answer is far more likely to come from the engineers in the
factories, not from the economists in Washington.
Providing an effective mix of transportation systems is one of the
most critical problems facing most states and ours is no exception.
We now have a single Department of Transportation, which includes
all modes of transport. And it is working to assure that Californians
will continue to be served by effective and efficient means of
transportation.
Highways are an essential element. Perhaps it is time that those
of you in this particular area of transportation become less defensive
and more aggressive in pointing out the beneficial impact of America's
network of highways and roads.
There has been far too much mythology about the so-called adverse
impact of highways and not enough of the facts about how vital our
ghways are to the prosperity, convenience and well-being of our people.
We have the best transportation system in the world. And the main
reason for that is because we have the best highways and roads.
There may be a need to be more selective in highway routes (and
we have been doing that in California). But the country is not being
swallowed up in concrete as some would have you believe.
- 5 -
Highway Officials
--Since 1916, the population of the United States has doubled, the
number of vehicles has increased 30 times, yet highway mileage has
increased less than one third. In some areas, highways require less
land area than we used for horses and wagons before the automobile was
invented.
--The Interstate Highway system serves 93 percent of cities over
50,000 population, carries 19 percent of the nation's vehicle traffic
and yet uses up only one percent of the land area devoted to highways
and roads.
--The freeways, cast as the butt of so many jokes and the arch-
villain to many environmental extremists, have made a massive
contribution to traffic safety.
In our state, our street and highway program is supported by a
tax on gasoline. That gas tax is looked upon as a fountain of riches by
every special interest spending group.
The truth is, 93 percent of what we spend on highways nationally
is spent to maintain and improve our existing network of roads, not for
building new ones.
By improving our roads, by building fast-moving freeways, travel
time has been decreased, and this helps reduce smog by cutting down the
time a car is on the road between destinations.
--Ninety-eight percent of all the interstate routes have been
accepted without serious controversy. In California we have rerouted
highways to avoid encroaching on wildlife preserves or scenic areas and
they have done the same thing on the interstate system.
--The fact that we have a modern network of freeways and interstate
roads has saved literally thousands of lives. A freeway is one of the
safest places in the world to travel by car.
California is proud to be the home of the freeway because we think
our network of modern highways has served our people well.
The most important achievement is in the area of traffic safety.
Since 1963, we have cut the traffic death rate from 5.2 per 100 million
miles of travel to 3.9. Translated into human terms, that means that
8,648 fewer people have died on our highways.
The injury rate has declined from 237 per 100 million miles to 199.
A major reason for this is that we have had a continuing program of
highway improvement. We have worked to eliminate dangerous curves, to
eliminate all the traffic hazards that contribute to accidents.
Highway Officials
I am sure many of your states can tell of similar achievements.
The point is: highways are a necessary part of any modern, safe and
efficient transportation system.
We need a modern system of roads and highways to carry our people
to and from work, to haul the products of our industries and farms to
market, to help maintain a dynamic and prosperous economy and to make
travel safer for our people.
That is a legitimate and valid goal. It is something that
government must recognize, just as we recognize the need for legitimate
and realistic steps to protect and preserve the environment.
#####
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,
or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by
the above quotes).
- 7 -
$5
+1/21
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
RELEASE:
SATURDAY A.Ms.
Sacramento, California 95814
DECEMBER 15, 1973
Clyde Walthall, Press Secretary
916-445-4571
12-14-73
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
RELEASE
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION
RENO, NEVADA
December 14, 1973
Today, it seems there is a shortage of almost everything except
problems. There is the energy crisis, inflation, the whole economic
situation. And the pessimists and doom-criers who thrive on crisis are
out in full force. Well, it seems we have a choice. We can be like a
coyote sitting on a sharp rock howling with pain and too lazy to get up,
or we can move around and see if things really are hopeless.
For one thing it is time to stop depending on foreign sources for
our oil and energy needs and do whatever it takes to become self
sufficient. And if we are going to be successful in this, we are going
to have to get away from the idea that government has all the answers.
We all have to budget our time and our resources every day, whether
we are ranchers or businessmen or a housewife trying to keep her house-
hold expenses in line.
Establishing priorities is just as necessary for a state or a nation
as it is for the individual or the businessman.
With 6 percent of the world's population, we have been using about
35 percent of the world's energy. And if we are honest with ourselves,
we know we have been wasting some of that 35 percent and can conserve
some of it by doing things a little differently.
We have had more than a generation of sustained economic growth and
we have reached a level of affluence never equaled in the history of man.
The living has been easy. Now we face some complex problems and we will
learn whether we have the fortitude and stamina to deal with them.
For years, we have been accustomed to a continuing increase in
personal income and an even faster growth in the arrayof consumer goods
and services available to spend it on.
But lately, with everyone's take home pay being caught in the crunch,
we have discovered that a lot of this growth in gross income is not real.
It is inflation. Yes, we are earning more, but inflation is reducing the
value of what we have left and government takes a bigger and bigger share
in taxes.
And yet we hear suggestions to give government a little more
authority and control. That is more than a little ironic because the
increase in government cost since World War II largely started the whole
thing.
Cattlemen's Assoc.
What some of our people seem to have forgotten is the fact that
America's prosperity was not a gift from government or anyone else.
Free enterprise, not government, is the source from which our blessings
flow. Our high standard of living is based on a steady growth of the
private sector, the expansion of our technical capacity, the growth of
vast new industries and services. It is not some magic formula devised
in the marble halls of government. The savings of our people, translated
into constructive investments, freed the skill and ingenuity of our
scientists, engineers, industrial managers, businessmen and the ranchers
and farmers of America.
Our affluence is based on the sweat and toil of our people.
Now we will find out if the individual incentive that has kept
America's economy growing all these years has been softened by affluence.
The danger signals are there.
Someone once said the most satisfying thing in life is to park on
what is left of the other fellow's nickel. That is a clever wisecrack,
but it is bad economics.
Too many segments of our economy, too many of our people, have
become enamored with the idea that it is possible to park on the other
fellow's nickel indefinitely. And I am not just talking about those
unable to provide for themselves. There has been a dangerous tendency
in the country to run to government for the answers and it extends to the
top of largest corporations. Now we all see Congress trying to legislate
the kind of automobiles Detroit can make and the industry invited this.
Sooner or later, the free time on the parking meter runs out.
During the past decade, agriculture, the industry you represent, is
the only major part of America's economy that has been increasing its
output fast enough to cover inflation and other costs.
Nationally, our rate of productivity, the amount of goods and
services produced per man hour, has been the lowest of any major industrial
nation over the past 10 years. And this, of course, has helped cause our
balance of payments deficit and many of our other economic problems.
Your industry has been a leader in finding better ways of producing
food, and discovering new markets. You have done this through your own
research and marketing programs, without any federal assistance.
The major problem areas of agriculture have been in those very crops
that have been subjected to the most federal controls, the market quotas
and all the red tape and regulations that come with government interference
in a free market economy.
Cattlemen's Assoc.
All our people have been caught in the treadmill of higher taxes
and inflation. But it was not the ranchers or the farmers who made a
little planned inflation part of the nation's economic policy. It was
government. For most of the past 43 years, government has been engaged
in massive deficit spending, with little regard for the consequences.
Some of those who are now raising the greatest objections to the
higher cost of food are the same elected representatives who voted for a
policy of deficit spending, for government tinkering in the free market,
for all the maze of governmental "solutions" that always seem to turn
into problems.
It was not the rancher or the farmer who shackled agriculture with
controls and restrictions and told us the way to prosperity is to grow
less and charge more. It was government.
Government instituted the policy of taking land out of production
and still some people act surprised when there are crop shortages.
The advocates of governmental solutions wonder why prices have
gone up.
To pay higher taxes and to meet the higher cost of doing business,
prices always go up. They have to, or the producers go out of business.
Government is the only industry that can defy the laws of basic economics
and get away with it.
That is because government can pass its deficits on to the people
by increasing the national debt, or by raising taxes.
I do not know why we were so surprised by the energy crisis.
Reasonable and responsible officials in both industry and government
have been warning about the impending fuel and power shortage for years.
We just were not listening.
There is a law of physics that says for every action, there is an
opposite and equal reaction. Well, the same is true of lack of action.
And the sad truth is: we have not moved fast enough in these past few
years to develop the oil and energy we need to drive the tractors on the
farms, to heat our homes and hospitals, to provide the power and fuel
agriculture and industry must have to provide job opportunities for our
people and to maintain our high standard of living.
We have established some environmental goals in a legitimate and
perhaps long overdue effort to conserve and use our resources wisely and
protect the environment, clean up the air and eliminate water pollution.
- 3 -
Cattlemen's Assoc.
I do not believe there is any need to retreat from those goals.
But in carrying them out, we cannot ignore the fact that this is a nation
whose prosperity and survival depends on a sufficient amount of fuel and
electric power.
We must balance environmental goals with energy needs. Saving the
environment cannot mean calling a halt to all development, all
construction, all drilling and mining.
Unless we are prepared to reconcile the competing needs of
environmental protection and energy development, our entire economy is
in jeopardy of grinding to a slow but inevitable halt.
Our people have always been willing to work together to meet a
great national challenge. I believe they will meet the energy crisis
with the same spirit of cooperation, compromise and determination.
In the past few months, we have heard quite a bit about what we
do not have in the way of energy resources and prospects. I think it is
time we start remembering what we do have, in natural resources and in
the technical capacity to find new sources of energy.
We have half the world's supply of coal.
We have enough oil locked in the shale fields of Utah, Colorado and
Wyoming to last several hundred years. And we have also got the technical
ability to find a way to get it out, economically and without undue damage
to the environment.
The North Slope oil strike in Alaska a few years ago added hundreds
of millions of barrels of oil to our known reserves. But development of
this resource has been stalled and delayed because of the objections of a
few.
What has been lacking is a sense of national purpose, a determination
to get on with the job of making America self-sufficient in fuel and
energy.
We can and should include environmental protection as a bsic part of
all our new development. But we cannot stop development altogether.
Until we achieve that degree of unity, until we decide as a people
that America can and will do whatever it takes to achieve self sufficiency,
we cannot hope to solve the energy crisis. It is time we get on with it.
They say a pessimist is someone who sees a calamity in every
opportunity and an optimist is a fellow who sees an opportunity in every
calamity. Well, I do not believe the energy problem is a national calamity
yet. It just might be an historic opportunity for our country to again
demonstrate the inherent strength of our system, by accelerating the
technology we must have to meet our energy needs.
Cattlemen's Assoc.
It will not be easy or cheap and like other problems we face as a
country and as a people, the answer can be summed up within a four
letter word: work. If we display the same kind of determination that
enabled our country to build itself into the greatest economy in history,
we can handle anything that comes along now.
We will not find the answers by looking always to government. We
must start looking to ourselves.
A nation should not become everly dependent on some other country
from the vital resources it must have. And a people should not become
dependent on government.
In Sacramento, some very kind hearted people concerned about the
squirrels in the Capitol grounds decided to do something about it---a
long time ago. For years, one of our legislators has been buying nuts
to make sure they have enough to eat. He passed away, so another
legislator recently took up the task.
The first day he went out with the walnuts he had trouble getting
them to eat any. Plenty of squirrels and plenty of walnuts, but the
squirrels were not having any. Then one of the bystanders who had been
watching said: "You have to crack them first." They did and had the
squirrels eating out of their hands.
America has the resources, the skills and the experience to meet
all our needs, to feed and clothe our people, to maintain our prosperity,
to meet whatever challenges we might face in the future.
But if we expect to do it, we cannot become too dependent on
government or anyone else. We cannot be like those squirrels. We have
got to cracka few walnuts ourselves.
#####
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may bechanges in,
or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by
the above quotes).
5