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
118564112
label
Transcripts - 05/11/1971, 05/18/1971, 05/25/1971, 06/10/1971
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564112
contentType
document
title
Transcripts - 05/11/1971, 05/18/1971, 05/25/1971, 06/10/1971
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Press Conference Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564112
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
1927d0dc5ffc0efd
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: Press Conference Transcripts -
05/11/1971, 05/18/1971, 05/25/1971, 06/10/1971
Box: P03
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
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD MAY 11, 1971
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is
furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their conven-
ience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly
as possible after the conference, no corrections are made and there is
no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
o0o
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Eadres and gentlemen, I've had a few
words for opening here, although I don't have a prepared statement
for you. I know that you've just had a press conference with a legis-
lative leadership of both parties who met with me in the office this
morning. Let me just give my few words on it here before you start
with questions and perhaps anticipate some in advance. I think it
was a fruitful meeting. I think it started a communication that
hasn't existed for sometime now, and out of the meeting which was
wide-ranging and certainly covered a number of subjects, came the
assurance that the budget is going to move and that very possibly
according to the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, a budget
will come out tothe floor in the Assembly within a week. At the
same time I think one of the most fruitful and forward steps was the
Assembly Speaker's declaration that we would go forward meeting on the
subject of welfare and see if we could not come down to those areas
of agreement and find out where our, if any, areas of disagreement are
and that welfare wenld be resolved in this way prior to the adoption
of a budget. We were also assured by them that they have the inten-
tion ofhaving a budget for us by the end of the Siscal year so that
we can start the new fiscal year with a budget instead of what we have
had in the last few years. The Speaker of the Assembly, who has
not as yet actually had a briefing firsthand from our people in
welfare, and the welfare reform program, agreed that he would have
such a briefing. I think it would be helpful. I think there is
still some areas where even though he of course has had counseling of
his own staff and others, I think there's some questions of his that
could be resolved if he had a chance to ask it firsthand and to see
the briefing of the others.
-1-
The final subject that came up was brought up bu. Republican Senator
present, there was the matter of withholding and why, because of the
cash flow problem, withholding could not be treated as a separate
a
item and adopted. It seemed/perfectly logical thing when I broke
the concrete around my feet and surrendered to the thoery of withholding
it seems a long time ago now, put it into our tax reformpproposal
of last year, I made it plain that it was not in my mind an essential
part of tax reform. We had only put it in because it filled a slot
and the money that could be raised from withholding was roughly what
we needed to balance out our home owner's relief last year. But that
I warned then that the reason why I had given in and changed my mind
in withholding was for the state's needs. The cash flow needs and I
warned -- well, it's been a year and a half ago, I guess that as of
this coming fall we would have to go to tax warrants or tax anticipa-
tion notes unless we had withholding to even out the cash flow.
We will have to do that, it is too late now for us to implement with-
holding even if it were passed right now, so I suppose the next target
date is January 1. But sinee they put it in their own tax reform
program, since we have made it evident that it is acceptable to us,
we felt that there was no reason why it couldn't be taken out and voted
on separately and we could then go forward with the implementing of
it at the same time that we negotiated out the use that would be made
of the increased revenues because of withholding as well as negotiate
out what could be a paactical one-time use of the overlap or windfall
that would come about because of the implementing of withholding.
Thatpretty much is the meeting.
8
Do you expect to get a formal or informal commitment from
Democrats next week on what parts of the welfare reform plan they
will agree to pass?
A
Well, I think it would be informal. The original purpose
of this morning's meeting actually we went farther and talked longer,
actually got into these subjects, but I called the meeting for the
purpose of seeing if we couldn't set up a schedule of meetings and
machinery whereby we could get together and discuss these points.
As I say, we went a little beyond that and so this was the -- they
are coming back to us with their views on the welfare reform proposals.
Again it is one of those subjects where everybody is for it,
everybody wants welfare reform and if there is any difference I
suppose it is going to be a difference of how we go about it.
-2-
8
How do you iew the movement of the W fare-Medi-cal proposals.
in the Assembly subcommittee yesterday?
A
Well, I am encouraged now by the fact that we are going to --
that they are now going to come back. So far all we have -- all we
have dealt with is the -- they went into limbo -- oh, on the Senate
side, I must say there are some discussions going forward between
Senator Burgener and Senator Beilenson and others on that committee
about welfare points. And as the Speaker made it plain, there was
no reason at all -- they are aware of the program, why even though
this is on the Senate side the Assembly could not come in with some
areas and tell us where -- what was asceptable and what they would find
they could go along with.
Q
Governor, the Ways and Means Chairman seemed concerned that
the new estimates of anticipated revenue shortfall next year is
getting bigger and this will necessitate new taxes. Do you agree
with that?
A
We don't have those final figuresyyet.
I don't know where
he was -- he was quoting the legislative analyst. I don't know
where the legislative analysttgot his figures. I have to say this,
that we are waiting, as you know -- this is about the period when
we will get the official new estimates. I think it would be highly
optimistic for anyone to think that in the present economic climate
we are going to find that we can make our adjustments upward and
I don't think anyone would be too surprised if there are further
downward adjustments. But as of now we don't know what those figures
are. When we have them, why we will of course go Worward with
whatever adjustments have to be made, budgetwise.
Q
Do you still think the budget can be balanced without newer and
higher taxes?
A
Well, now you are asking me before I have all the information
or know what all the taxes are. I still think that before we talk
new revenues that we are certainly duty-bound to do everything we
can to meet the crisis by reducing the cost of government and the
biggest and the best way to do this is in the area of welfare reform.
I think that if -- if those figures should be accurate that they are
taking about , or should even be close, I think this is another
indication of why the taxpayer should be our prime consideration,
because if revenues are down it means that more people are unemployed,
more people have lost income or have lowered incomes, and I don't see
why the state should think that the automatic and easy answer to our
problems is to simply take more money away from those people who are
already suffering because of this economic slump.
John, you had
your hand --
Q
Bill --
A
I'm sorry, Bill.
8
Governor, how far would you like to see welfare move before
you are willing to make an agreement on the budget? Before you were
saying you wanted the bills passed by July 1.
A
Well, if we had an assurance -- the thing is the budget is
predicated upon what has to go in for welfare, it is about our biggest
spending item and until we know what that item can be I don't see how
a budget -- a budget could be put together until you are able to
put in a figure that you say this is the budgeted amount for welfare
and that's why I have insisted all this time that until we knew what
number or percentage of our welfare reform proposals they are agree-
able to, there is no way that they could close the budget. You now
and then here.
8
Doesn't your budget balance itself, though, without the
necessity for welfare legislation? Isn't it balanced on welfare
regulations?
A
Well, no, the -- the thing is we submitted a budget and
frankly told them -- in other words, we submitted to -- to meet the
constitutional requirement of submitting a balanced budget, we put in a
reduced figure for welfare. We then presented at the same time a
program with it of the welfare reforms that would make this figure
be an accurate figure, a practical figure. Now, if somebody passed
that budget without this accompanying legislation, we would have a
budget which the only way it could be balanced would simply be to
reduce the welfare grants and since our welfare reform proposal is
just the opposite for the truly needy, the raising of their grants,
I hardly think anyone in California would beliefe that the solution
to our problem would simply be an across-the-beard reduction of grants
to people who are not getting enough now.
Q
GovernOr, with regard to withhodling, one of the Republican
Senators that came out of the meeting indicated today that one think
that did seem apparent is that there would not be a separate withhold-
ing
bill.
Did you get that same impression?
A
Well, yes, we did, and this is what seemed kind of surprising
to me, since -- since I'm the one that surrendered on it and gave in
-4-
sometime ago, and t y are the ones who for mar years have been
demanding it, and since they have proven that they also seem to favor
it by making it a part of their present tax reform program, I can 't
for the life of me see why we can't at least show signs of progress
and go forward with this one step. And this was part of the discussion
and we -- we so stated. And at least then we would ensure that
the -- this fall would be the only time that we wald have to resort
to warrants or tax anticipation notes, because by the following year
we would have that on-going revenue.
8
Who regected the withholding as a separate measure?
A
Well, there was -- there was disagreement in the room and
there was no single individual that was a hold-out in that sense.
It was just a -- we were on one side and they were on the other.
D
Well, nevertheless, Governor, are you now resigned -- we
gathered from everything all the members said here today, that you
met with, are you resigned to the fact that there will not be a
separate bill on withholding?
A
No, I'm hoping that they will give that some further consider-
ation and see that there is no valid reason with all of us agreed
on the need for it, all of us agreed in the desirability, that they
will take a second look at whatever their own strategy is, and
decide to go forward with it.
Q
Governor, would you like to use the one-time windfall to
balance the budget?
A
No, no, but I have said that I am willing to meet, as I
indicated to you gentlemen here prevsiouly last week, as a matter of
fact I'm willing to sit down and in this time of stringency where we
have had to forego certain capital one-time expenditures, where we
have the problem of the schools with regard to meeting earthquare
proof standards that I am certainly willing to sit down and negotiate
out some arrangement with regard to the use of that, but it would have
to be an a one-time basis. I don't think that you use a single
windfall for on-going costs of government and then come up a year from
now saying, "Well, We don't have the windfall anymore, where do we
find the money?"
Q
Another subject?
A
Another subject?
Q
I've got another question on that. What is your position
on forgiveness now, are you for a hundred per cent forgiveness?
-6-
A
No, this is the windfall we are talking about?
Q
Right.
A
And --
Q
I mean how much windfall would there --
A
I suppose we are talking about some place between 400 and 500
million dollars, if it should go into effect in January, and my
own -- my own feeling about that is that very possibly -- I have
always been for forgiveness, I've always heen for giving it back to
the people, but as I say, there are some needs that because of the
economic slump we haven't been able to meet, in one-time construction
needs -- I would be willing to sit down and listen to what I think
would be the ideal, is bd kind of a split, give some of it back to the
people and use some of it to meet these Immediate needs. Particularly
in the area of schools.
Q
Like half and half?
A
I'd settle for that.
Q
Governor, four months ago or so when you were first intro-
ducing all your various packages, they were predicated on the fact
that the economy was indeed turning around.
A
Yeah.
Q
The Nixon administration was going something and you
were doing something. You don't sound as optimistic now as you did
in January. What is the ecnnomic picture today?
A
No, when you say it is turning around, I think this is what
makesyo -- and I always use that in connection with the fact that
this is a temporary situation, that to try and solve this temporary
slump by rushing out and imposing new taxes which you always find
it difficult to get rid of once they are -- they are passed,
is to act as if this is the permanent situation, as if this is an
on-going fiscal crisis. And I think that the comeback in employment
and so forth are always the last thing S that come back, but I think
the business corner has been turned. I think many indexes -- every
week in the financial pages you see further indeces that -- that we
are coming out. There is an upsurge. For example, Christmas,
retail trade was one of the indicators that we were going to be way
down in our sales tax, there was no Christmas rush, but just a short
time ago there was a decided difference with regard to the annual
Easter rush, it was beginning to come back more toward normal.
And
-6-
many other indicators of this kind. But everyone knows that when
you come out of a slump of this kind the last recovery is in the
area of unemployment.
Q
Governor, Senator Mills said that he came away from this
morning's meeting with the impression that you are willing to com-
promise on this question of new taxes. Did he read you correctly?
A
Well, let me just say first of all, not until I have seen
that everything has been done to reduce the cost of government to
solve this welfare problem. Now, again you have me with the
unknown factor here of what might happen with further decline in
revenues. Let me just say that the last resort that I would ever
find acceptable is the increase of taxes and I recognize that you can
theoretically come down to a point where you have done everything you
can to save and then certain constitutional requirements cannot be
met and you have to turn to 10g butjlet me point out that the
leadership of the other party has indicated that they want new
taxes and they have indicated this quite definitely from the first,
new taxes for such things as a pay increase for faculty in higher
education, pay increases for employees, further increased grants to
public school education, and we know that 85 per cent of that is
for salary increase. Now, these are talking tax increases in this
time of hardship for the people that have nothing to do with balancing
a budget. These are deeaming up new expenses and then passing
taxes to pay them. And what you have asked about would be if we were
faced having done everything we could to save, if we were faced then
with still an inability to balance the budget.
Q
That other subject. Governor, a mock war tribunal was
planned for Sacfamento State College tomorrow, and it's how been
cancelled. There were reports that were -- the cancellation came
from higher than the college, the Chancellor's office, even from your
office. Are you aware of -- of that planned tribunal?
A
I have found out after it was all over that there came a
report to our office that such a thing was planned, and an inquiry
about it was forwarded automatically to the Chancellor's office, and
I don't know anything about it until somebody came in and told me that
the Chancellor and the President had gotten together and that had
determined that there would be different arrangements for such a
meeting.
-7-
0
Can you tel 1 us more about that, those reports, where did
you heart the reports of it?
A
What?
Q
It was a fairly routine thing. Where did you get your
reports about the tribunal?
A
From Der. Sheriff's and the Education office. Certainly
that was -- it was an accomplished fact before I even heard anything
about it, I didn't even know there was any such thing going on.
&
Governor, how is your mail running on the facts around the
discoceure about your income tax last year?
A
I haven't had any accounts of any unusual mail or anything.
I received the usual two orthree anonymous postcards that you --
that you get.
8
Another subject.
D
No, same subject.
Q
Same subject, Governor. Governor, yesterday Mrs. Reagan
said she hopes you don't run for political office as a result of
this.
Is that your sympathy, too?
A
No, I just think you have to accept that I don't think any
wife enjoys having her husband in politics. I think it is especially
hard on them with some of the thingsthat go on with politics.
Q
Had you known she was going to make that statement, sir?
A
No.
Q
Governor, there is a report today that almost all of the
$91,000 that you said you paid in state taxes came as the result of
a single transaction, the sale of the land to 20th Century Fox, is
that true?
A
Look, I gave you a statement about my taxes, and it would
seem that someone evidently has access to or is privileged to have
information that is not available about any citizen's tax returns.
And I have nothing further to say. No, this was over a period of
more than one year. And the amount speaks for itself.
Q
Nevertheless, is it true it is all due to the same transaction?
A
Well, it obviously had to be on transactions outside of the
Governor's salary, didn't it?
8
Governor, would you give us your definition of how public
a public official should be? In the light of what has happened this
last week. What is your -- where are the limits?
-8-
A
I would tl k that the limits are the ame legal limits that
apply to all citizens and then those ather limits that apply to good
taste and none of us are very happy about prying neighbors.
Q
Governor, last Wednesday you said that the press had invaded
your privacy by asking the question about your tax status. How do
you explain that in light of the fact that you at least attempted to
give an answer to the question rather than saying that it was improper?
A
Well, I think that I said that all that needed to be said
and as I said in my copening line of my explanation , I still found it
difficult to anderstand or accept that I was put in the position where
I had to make such anstatement.
0
Same subject. There is an investigation under way.
Can
you tell usmore about that investigation, from the Attorney General's
office.
A
Don't know a thing about it.
0
Governor, Senator Ribicoff in Connecticut is protesting
action by the HEW in Washington, in granting you certain waivers on
your welfare reforms. Do you have any reaction to the Senator's
protest?
A
Yes. Senator Ribicoff was once the Director of Health
Education -- or Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and
perhaps if he laid a better foundation when he was in that job we
wouldn't have some of the problems we have today, but Senator Ribicoff
was present in the Senate Finance Committee in Washington when we
met with them and when Governor Rockefeller and I made a presentation
to them about the problems of welfare. Senator Ribicoff made it
immediately plain that he did not put any stock in the stories of
welfare abuses, that he did not seem to think that there was anything
needed to correct in welfare and then he departed the meeting without
waiting for an answer from us to attend the mardi gras in New Orleans.
Q
Governor, on this welfare and tax business, your personal
income tax business, linked together, do you have any proposal to
the legislature right now that would allow examination of the income
tax returns of welfare recipients? Would you tell me the difference
between that invasion of privacy and the invasion of privacy you
say you --
A
Yes, because that is the same privileged information for a
government agency as it is in the paying of your tax to a government
agency. Obviously that agency has to have access. The situation
-9-
is that when you go eyond that when that agenc carèlessly reveals
information -- now welfare presently has a clause of confidentiality
regarding case records that has gone so far that, as I have told many
of you, one county welfare director in California actually had to
get a court order even though he is the entire county director to get
his own employees to give him information on this -- on these records.
And it would seem to me that some of the people who are so insistent
on even more confidentiality of welfare records are also among the
most vocal critics regarding the -- or at least in their demands that
tax information not be so privileged.
Q
Governor, during your last press conference you said that
it might be embarrasing to some legislators to discuss handling
of their per diems. Would you like to expand on this comment?
A
No, I just -- they were having so much fun up there I
thought I ought to give them something more to worry about.
Q
You haven't had any access to any of their income tax
returns, have you?
A
No.
Q
Governor, relative to the question asked before, it did not
C ome from anyone who has access to your income tax returns, but
public documents do indicate that you realized a capital gain on the
sale of that property that would produce or require the state tax
in an amount of about 85 to 80 --88 thousand dollars, that's why I
asked the question. In view that it does come from public documents,
could you give us an answer? Is that true?
A
I gave you gentlemen a statement on this entire situation,
only because all ofyou seemed to have successfully created a kind of
impression that there might have been some wrnngdoing and there was
none. And I don't see why I should go any farther with any further
statements on this.
Q
Do you feel that the disclosure about your --
8
What caused you to think that there had been some mention
of wrongdoing? Was there any single story or any connotation in any
story which alleged that you had committed some wrongful act?
A
Well, gentlemen, 10you have to ask that question --
8
You raised the point, Governor.
A
-- about the whole atmosphere that was raised, then you
evidently don't even read each other or yourselves.
Q
Do you feel that the flap about your tax status will have
-10-
any effect on your litical future?
A
Well, now you opened all of this by asking whether I had
a
political
future
or
not.
Now I've told you that I hav e not thought
beyond 1974 when, as I have made it plain, I would not try for a
third term because I don't believe in three terms for a Governor of
California, and so no, I think that overwhèlming majority of the
people understand that there was nothing wrong. IJthink they -- if
they got the full treatment of the statement I made, they understand
that I very obviously could not have been seeking this profession or
this particular career for any monetary gain. And I don't see why
there should be.
SQUIRE: Any more questions? Thank you, Governor.
000
-11-
1/5
PRESS CON. {ENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD R. GAN
HELD MAY 18, 1971
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conferense
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible after the conference no corrections are made and
there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
000
(Calit. Ecology Corps)
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Press Release No. 303)
D
Governor, how much money could be available for this?
A
I'd have to leave that to Jim Stearn. The reason why
we had first simply announced it at the $15 level is we were simply
staying within the framework of those campssthat will be closed or
were going to be closed because of the lack of juvenile offenders
to man them anymore.
D
Governor, if you are having no trouble recruiting, why are
you upping the salary?
A
Well, as I say, the -- this again you can go to Jim Stearn.
We recognize that it was not particularly an inducement or an advantage
at such a rate. The rate was possible before because the people who
were getting it didn't have much choice. They didn't volunteer to
be in those camps and it was way out of line with the other kindsof
community effort and so forth that we made. And there was question
about it even from some of the draft boards, so evidently Jim Stearn
has found a way whereby it could be made more compatible with the job.
8
Governor, does adjustments within allocations mean that
money that would have been spent for something else will now be used
to
A
Again VOI'll have to refer you to Jim Stearma. I haven't
had a chance to find out exactly how he worked this.
8
There is a girl from Davis who wants to join. She's written
the state. Will girls be eligible for this?
A
Well, now, you've brought up a whole new subject. I'll
have to ask -- our hope is, as we have said before, that beyond the
constientious objector thing that we might be able to carry this
out and take other kinds of volunteers. Now, if there is a place
and possibility of a girls camp, I doubt if we will go co-educational.
-1-
D
Governor, ve you talked to anyone 11. the White House about
this?
Have you spoken with the President about this idea?
A
As a matter of fact, I have just gotten off a letter to the
President explaining it to him, telling him about it, calling his
attention to it in case it is of interest to anyone else.
2
Governor, do you think this Ecology Corps encourages people
to become C.O. 's?
A
Oh, I don't think so, and I think the test for conscientious
objectors is pretty firmly fixed. It's been a long -- very frankly
an honorable tradition in our country that we have in our separation
of church and state never forced anyone against their religious
convictions and beliefs to bear arms for the country.
0
Another subject, Governor. Last reports, the Governors of
two states indicated they would delay imposition of the death penalty
until the U. S. Supreme Court meals with the last legal question,
whether it is cruel or unusual punishment.
Can you tell us whether
you have given any particular thought to this?
A
No, I think that things are following their normal course
here.
I don't think we have any intention of declaring a moratorium
over and beyond the decision that's been handed down.
0
In other words if the -- any dates are set, then you will
not interfere with the -- with the dates that are set by the courts?
A
No, unless there would be circumstances warranting clemency
and the commuting of the sentence on that basis.
a
Governor, would that create a problem if people were executed
and then subsequently the court declared that the death penalty was
unconstitutional?
A
Well, wouldn't that apply to all the people who have been
sentenced to death and have been executed?
8
Another subject?
A
Yes.
Q
All right. Governor, Assemblyman Gonsalves modified his
retorm
tax bill before it was voted out of committee yesterday.
Do you now
find it more palatable?
A
Well, I -- we haven't paid very much attention to that bill
as it went through because as I say my principal objection mas that
it was actually a half a billion dollar tax increase and I can't say
that I know in detail all that he has or that has been suggested in
amending it.out of there.
One of the other great weaknesses of the
-2-
(from page 2) wea esses of the bill was tha it contained really
no restriction on going right back and starting to increase property
taxes again, and we don't believe that any tax reform that's aimed
at giving the home owner relief is sound unless it contains some
limitations so thatproperty taxes can't go right back up to there
they presently are.
Q
Do you plan to counter this with your own program as
rumored around here?
A
Well, we -- we have this under donsideration in the Senate.
They are still -- representatives of both parties meeting trying
to find out as we set out to do at the very beginning of this session,
if there isn't some area that we can get together on a tax reform
proposal and we are giving them more time to see if they can arrive
at some agreement.
8
And you may have a proposal, is that right?
A
This could be, yes.
8
Governor, you are going to have to explain this to me
because I've asked a lot of people and I still don't understand it.
It's been said that you do have and have had the administrative power
for the last five years to implement some of the welfare reforms
to the tune of $176point million dollars. I asked Paul Beck.
He
said you are just getting a handle on it, and I don't know what that
means.
Perhaps you can explain.
A
I know what he means by just getting a handle on it. Yes,
I understand the Speaker was quite concerned and said we could do
that. That's a very curious thing, coming from someone in the
legislature because I guess virtually every yearssince I've been here
we have had bills in the legislature asking for legislative help in
reforming welfare. Also I would call to your attention that attempts
administratively to change welfare over the last four years, adverse
court decisions on those, have resulted in an increase of more than
$440 million dollars in welfare costs. Now, many instances help
from the legislature with regard to those administrative or -- or
those adverse decisions, could have been forthcoming. All that
would have bean required in some instances was for the legislature
to simply pass by statute what we were trying to do administratively.
The plain truth is yes, if we had known four years ago and had the
information that we have now, I'm sure that administratively we could
have gone forward with these things.
We didn't have that informa-
tion.
2
Why?
A
Well, for one reason we had difficulty learning It until
we appointed about a year ago a task force to go in and on a task
force basis find this for us, but the other reason, even much more
pertinent than that, was that it is our advance in electronic data
processing that has now made us able to correlate the information --
the great mass of information we get back from the county level and
to find some of the things that we have found. We are probably the
only state in the Union that can do that. As a matter of fact, we
are so far ahead of them that many of the other states that are using
our reform proposals are also using the -- the information we found
because we just were the first to do it. Now we still have further
to go even in data processing. But this was the main factor.
We finally had access to information and could make projections
that we weren't chle to make in previous years because we -- we
weren't computerized to the extent we are now.
Q
Will you use that power now that you have it?
A
Will we what?
8
Will you use that power now that you know youhave it?
A
Oh, yes, it is a very definite part of our welfare reform.
As you know, there is a great deal of it that 1s administrative.
Much of that administrative hinges on certain comparable statutes
that we need and we recognize that some of the things that we might
try to do administratively we would immediately be challenged in
court and here again we'dalehinnfan stronger ground because take
the adverse decision to us with regard to conformity. They have
all been on the basis that we can't do administratively what we are
trying to do. Not necessarily that what we are trying to do is
wrong.
The decisions have been that it requires a statute change.
Q
What can you do administratively then?
A
Well, as I say, if you look at the 70 points of the welfare
program a:ld in the briefings given to the legislatures, they found
that -- there was a great deal of the program that is administrative.
These are changes that we are going forward with as we ask them for
statutes. Now, perhaps the Speaker in bringing up this point was
just legitimately honestly mis -- or uninformed because it was just
only a few days ago that we finally persuaded him to have the briefing
that our welfare people have been giving to the press and other
members of the legislature. He hadn't had time to have that briefing.
Q
Sir -- sir, have you initiated any of these administrative
reforms since the program was announced?
A
Where thei progress is --
PAUL BECK: Started in December on some of them.
A
Started in December.
2
Governor, have you heard from Speaker Moretti on what part
of the program he's willing to accept and what he wouldn't?
A
No, I suppose that that might be a subject for discussion
in our next meeting, which was scheduled for Thursday, but now
possibly will have to be delayed because the President of the Senate,
Senator Mills, is in Washington and there is a possibility that some
of the other legislators might be absent on Thursday.
Q
Governor, what other states are using California's informa-
tion on welfare reform?
A
Well, we had inquiries at the Governor's Conference from
virtually every Governor and we made an announcement to all the
Governors then that even those who hadn't specifically anked for it,
that we would send our full reform report to every Governor.
In
addition to this we have had legislative groups call on us from
other states and very frankly they asked that there be no particular
publisity about that. They came out here, they had the full
briefing, spent a day with our people on the reform and we have
respected their desire to do that. In some of the instances maybe
the reason they didn't want the publicity is because they were
almost totally Democrats.
Q
What governors -- haveyyou heard from any governors
specifically?
A
Well, yes. One governor in New York has gotten his welfare
reform program passed already by the legislature, and much of it, very
frankly, he was frank tosay, was based on ours.
Q
He told you that? Governor Rockefeller told you that it
was based on --
A
Yes.
Q
When did he tell you that?
A
What?
Q
When did he tell you that?
A
Well, I have seen -- seen Governor Rockefeller on several
occasions during the last time at Williamsburg and this was after
they had succeeded in passing it. He's made little secret of the
fact that he was indebted to California for much of the information
that has led him to his own reforms.
-5-
0
Governor,
ther subject?
A
All right.
8
Next week they start hearings in the legislature on
committee on the Coastline Conservation. There are a program of
them before the Senate. Do you favor or would you favor some form
of legislation where the state would have control that could
control development of the California coastline?
A
Well, this is a -- this is truly a complex problem and it
is one that the state believes it has -- we believe the state has a
part in it to play, but at the same time I think we should be very
careful about the state simply moving in and imposing itself on
county and local planning agencies. We believe there is an area
whereby we can get coastline counties to go in groups for greatment
of problems that overlap and affect all of them at the same time.
We have $1,050 miles of coastline. About 400 miles of that is
now under public ownership. So it isn't that the coastline has
been totally neglected, that's a pretty good percentage that is --
has the protection now of public ownership. But we do think that
there is much that could be done in a zoning up and down the coast
to insure that there will be always preservation of those unique
beauty spots along the coast, that there will he preservation of park
space and certainly beaches to the extent possible for our population.
And I think that the state has a place, but I think it's got to be
a place that is in cooperation with county and local government.
I don't think that the state should simply take over because if
we once set that precedent, what's to keep us from taking over the
mountains, or the desert or the dalley?
Q
Do you relieve the coastline zoning should start on the
local and regional level?
A
Yes. Yes, we think that there is an area for cooperation
and where the state can be of very great help to them in a kind of
planning of the coast and coastal development, but respecting the
rights of local planning commissions.
8
Governor, I'd like to go back and ask another welfare ques-
tion.
8
Stay on this for a moment.
Conservationists contend that
local government has had the authority all along to control the
development, but they haven't exercised that authority and that's
the cause of the problem.
-6-
A
Well, this 3 why, as I have said befor I think there is
an area for the state to come in and be of help to them in this.
Sometimes some local governments frankly confess that they lack the
muscle, sometimes, to do what they believe should be done.
Q
Do you have any concrete ideas as to what the state's
position should be? I mean to what extent they have this part to
play?
A
Well, it is a very definite involvement and I would -- I
think back on the reams of minutes of cabinet meetings that we have
had on this in the last year or so, I don't think there is any way
I could brief them down to a sentence answer for you. All I can
say, again, is to repeat, we definitely believe there is an area
for state involvement here and that can fall short of simply over-
ruling local government.
D
Could this state help ever involve vetoing local decisions?
A
Well, I think again this is an area that we have always
saught to work with the governmental agencies in the 7 coastal
counties on this, and I think that -- I think it is possible that
there could be something of that kind, but I think it is something
we would rather work out with them. Kind of compact for the
protection of the coast.
8
Governor, is it safe to say you do not think the state
should have the same power as example -- for example, the BCDC does
over the San Francisco Bay, should not have the power of total
veto?
A
No, I would -- I don't think that the state should have
the power of total veto.
Q
What about the regional approach that is contained in pro-
posals that are now before the Assembly, the Sieroty bill and the
Wilson bill?
A
I can't tell you that I have honestly looked at those or
oven where they are. So I can't give you an answer on that question.
Q
Governor, your. Berkeley editorial of the Daily Cal has
said that there is going to be a meeting, at least informally, of
some regents to discuss the Daily Cal's editorial concerning People's
Park.
I wondered if you knew anything about that, about any
meeting, and what are your concerns of the Daily Cal's editorial?
A
Well, in that regard, if there is such a mceting, remember
that the Regents themselves did involve themselves in the matter of
-7-
the whole matter of campus publications and I believe there is a
committee that still is in charge of that and possibly they're having
a meeting. There is a Regents meeting on Friday, committee meetings
are on Thursday. And I have no doubt that this latest matter will
be taken up by the Regents because of this involvement. There are
other matters I understand, I have heard, that are going to be
brought up by some Regents not involving the People's Park episode
but involving other violations of guidelines that were set down
with the administration of the university regarding campus publi-
cations.
0
What are they?
A
What?
8
What are those matters?
A
I don't know. I only know that there are some Regents
that want to bring some to the attention of the Board of Regents.
0
Do they involve the Berkeley Daily?
A
I wouldn't even know which campuses.
D
Do you think the Regents should take some action as a result
of that editorial in the Daily Cal?
A
I felt that the Regents should take some action when they
first involved themselves with the campus publications. I think
they were out of hand, I think the administration of the university
admitted that, andeevidently as long as we are involved in that,
since this probably will come before us, whether for some kind of
action or not, because it has been taken up on the campus at
Berkeley, and evidently there were those on the campus itself and
including the publications board there who felt that there had been
wrongdoing.
Q
What action?
Q
There may be no need for action by the Regents, is that
what you are saying?
A
That's very possible.
Q
There is another proposal coming up from three city
Councilmen in Berkeley that the People's Park fence be taken down as
a public nuisance. As a Regent what are your feelings on that?
A
Well, are you are getting pretty far down the line here
into administrative procedures +and groundkeeping procedures of the
campus or the univessity itself. That is a piece of university
-8-
property.
The
prol
ty, it's been made in to
soccer field and
parking lot. And -- which it was always intended to be until such
time as the ground would be used for dormitories. Andiffathe
university feels it should have a fence around it, the university
property, I don't know whose decision that was, that's up to them.
If they decide it doesn't require a fence, that's also up to them,
but I'd like to call to your attention that most of the people that
wanted to sborm the park this last week-end were similar to those
who caused the problem in the first place, they were not students;
in the most part, they were so-called street people. And their
large -- their contention is one that I don't think any of us
can subscribe to. They raisedthe issue two years ago in the first
place on the grounds that no one has a right to own property and
not even the university. Now, this is university property bought
with $1 million 300 thousand of taxpayers funds. And I don't think
that we are ready to throw out the right of private ownership.
But I will call to your attentinn that the original attempt to
take over that property two years ago was put on the basis of proving
once and for all that even the university was not allowed to own
property.
3
Can I go back to mine? Governor, on this -- the welfare
administratðve controls that you have had at your disposal. Your
administration has been in almost four years and you had task forces
at the start looking at all levels of government. can you explain
a little further why it was so difficult to find out what to do?
A
Well, because I think it is the most complex problem that
confronts us today, With the hundreds of regulations that are
imposed by the federal government, with congressional acts, with
state statutes and the state regulations, among some of the things
that we accomplished in those first four years for the benefit of
the counties, we reduced 2500 pages of state regulations down to
250 pages. We made many administrative improvements. We eased
in many places the burden on the counties. Again we had to depend
for much of our information on people, professionals, in the field
who were not sympathetic to the changes we wanted to make, and
this was why finally WO came to the idea of a total outside task
force. But also we just didn't have access to a great deal of the
information that was noeded for the kind of reforms we propose now.
Now that isn't information about rules or regulations. That's
information about case load, case load increase, the ability to make
projections, and all of this came about with our improved electronic
data processing. Now, there are some states -- smaller states that
I doubt they will ever have that kind of access to the information
that
we have. Some states are working toward that, don't have it
as yet. We are out in front. I think we were even able to bring
some information to the federal government that they hadn't -- that
they didn't have.
Q
Governor, today there is a federal commission investigating
the CRLA that ruled that three of the charges in your report were
not valid. What's your reaction and what do you think it will
do to your case?
A
Well, I don't very much think about it as my case. And
very frankly on the basis of some of the complaints that have come
from witnesses who have wanted to testify as to some of the actions
of CRLA, very frankly I don't have tpo much confidence in what is
going to be the outcome of this commission's findings.
a
Why not?
A
What?
Q
Why not?
A
I said on the basis of compaaints of witnesses who have
found themselves restricted. The information they could give,
restrictions placed on attorneys to cross-examine CRLA witreasses, and
possibly this dates back again to the mixup on the instructions
that were given to the commission in the first place.
a
What kind of verdict do you expect the commission to come
up -- you feel they are not going to do it your way, what do you
expect them to do?
A
I doubt that we will close off Folsom Boulevard and have a
street dance when it comes out.
(Laughter)
Q
What do youthink then the President is going to do if he's
going to be faced with a commission report but you are not happy
with? You ***iously are going to communicate this to the President.
What position does this put him in?
A
I think the President has made himself perfectly clear.
He's made a proposal for a whole new approach to rural legal assistance.
And I think that explains better than anything else his own idea about
the program that we vetoed.
-10-
8
Have you heard from Mr. Carlucci yet on your letter sent
two weeks ago?
A
No.
8
No response, no communication of any kind?
A
No. We still are hoping that we can have a meeting and
sort of straighten out some things.
2
Governor, what restraints have been complained about by
witnesses?
A
Well, there is one in the news wire today, as I understand
it, a wire that was sent to the commission by a former employee of
CRLA refusing to testify any further on the basis of the manner in
which such witnesses have been treated up till now.
8
Have there been other complaints that you are aware of?
A
Yes, yes.
0
Can you detail than for us?
A
No, there have just been complaints on the same thing.
8
Can you detail any complaints?
A
What?
Q
This is the commission mistreating witnesses or who
mistreating?
A
Well, now, you get me frightened here with my legal light
standing over the side as to what use of words I can make without
appearing to interfere with the judicial process. I think the com-
plaints have been an unwillingness to allow or hear full testimony
that seems to be detrimental to CRLA's activities. Did that --
am I safe on that?
ED MEESE: Plus limitation on cross-examination and the
limitation on the production of documents by CRLA.
Q
Governor, I'm not sure that I understand. Is it that these
judges are not permitting proper testimony to be emitted and if so
what motive would the judges have in keeping this kind of information
out?
A
I suggest you talk to the commission.
a
It is a judicial branch and they are not talking to the
press.
ED MEESE: Let's make clear, they are not a judicial
branch.
This is a commission of the executive branch of the federal
government. Their stature, the use of judges, has nothing to do
with their role as commissioners in this case.
-11-
8
I still am ondering what their motive ould be to have
a one-wided hearing.
A
You know, I just lie awake nights wondering what they are
myself.
2
Governor, in line with the CRLA, when are you going to
reveal your Ajudicare program?
A
I think we have been moving ahead on that in some areas
already, haven't we? Trying to institute it.
8
Are you going to put it in the budget to fund it this year?
A
Well, no, it was never to be funded by public funds.
D
Governor, Mr. Uhler -- Uhler put out a special bulletin and
in it he said, "We are sending it to you because of the Confusion
fomented by a non-ofjective press, and media," and he goes on to
outline his position and apparently the state OEO's position for
not fully cooperating with the commission. Do you feel you haven't
gotten your case out before the press so far?
A
Oh, I think a great many people are still confused as to
why we did not join in the fun and games that were proposed as the
method for the -- for conducting the hearing. A great many people,
whether it is just that they didn't read it or perhaps the location
it appeared in the publications or whatever, that they -- they
didn't understand that there had been some confusion about what
kind of a hearing this was to be and what its purpose was, and we are
still sticking with the original purpose.
SQUIRE:
Any more questions?
A
The original purpose was not a trial.
SQUIRE: Any more que stions? Thankyyou, Governor.
Q
Governor, thank you for the lounge, it is beautiful.
Thank you for the news lounge.
A
You are welcome. I just hope that you would understand
that true friendship would be revealed eventually.
000
-12-
19
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD MAY 25, 1971
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is
furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their conven-
ience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly
as possible after the conference, no corrections are made and there is
no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
oOo
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, good morning. We have some
visitors here with us this morning. Jim Bowe, formerly of Associated
Press is here in the Capitol. He's an instructor now in journalism
at Consumnes River College, and has his students here from the jour-
nalism class. Welcome, glad to have you here. I have an opening
statement here.
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read press release No. 321)
Q
Governor, the major points sound similar to the program
kast year. Where is the compromise in your plan?
A
Well, you'll be hearing the details of that later this week.
But they have to do with the formula for applying the property tax
relief to the homeowner. And they also have to do with regard to
the tax structure that will be used to supple -- or supplant that property
tax amount. Some changes in that.
0
Governor, Mr. Monagan just finished accusing Democrats of
not negotiating and not meeting with him at all. Have they been meeting
with the Executive Branch?
A
No, we have tried -- well, we have meetings and have had
a number of meetings on this and other subjects. And I -- I think that
he spoke correctly. I dontt think there has been any evidence of --
except on the part of a group in the Senate who have legitimately tried
to get together on some form of -- of a tax reform that they could
agree upon and evidently that has been fruitless.
8
Governor, who is the compromise with? What you call a
compromise plan.
A
Well, the compromise would be reflecting someof the complaints
that we have heard and that we heard last year regarding -- with regard
to the tax formula. So we have tried to modify as we said we would.
-1-
Q
Did you say the differences will be in the revenue --
in other words these are nice highlights about how we are going to get
relief, but who is going to get hit, where is the money coming from?
A
I say some of the changes over -- the point has been made
that it is similar to last year's. Well, that's not strange, last
year's plan was a well-thought out plan and it was the result of a --
almost two years of task force studies. We have, however, because
of the failure of that plan to pass, made some modification in the
formula as it will apply to the homeonwer and in the tax structure that
will be used to raise the revenues to make that reduction possible.
Q
That will still be, though, sales tax and income tax primarily?
A
And taxes -- and business taxes and a variety that we had last
year.
Q
Governor, yesterday Assemblyman Bagley said that the wind
has gone out of the tax reform sails. How do you expect to realize
the tax reform with thoir pasition already having been expounded?
A
Well, all I can say is the wind may have gone out of the
sales because of the inability to get anything going upstairs. It
hasn't gone out of the sails as far as the public is concerned and I
think they have made that very plain. How they feel about taxes,
how they feel about cost of government and I don't think there is any
question but that if this is not solved by the legislature within the
Capitol at Sacramento that there will be a measure on a ballot and the
people will be voting once again on property tax reform.
2
Governor, will your program include withholding?
A
Yes, yes.
Q
Governor, I gather that you say it is clear that continued
negotiation will be fruitless, that you have decided now to just
stop meeting with the Democrats on this matter all together, is that
right?
A
Well, we haven't decided to stop meeting with them on any
matter.
But to continue to believe that somehow behind the -- or
outside of the legislative process we can get together. as I had
suggested in January and work out a mutually acceptable plan,
evidently -- and then take that plan to the legislature, that evidently
isn't going to work.
Q
Governor, if that isn't going to work then realistically
what are the chances of any program that you would propose would of
course be the nature of a partisal proposal?
-2-
A
Well, I'vee always believed that the legislative process
is influenced by public opimion and so far the public hasn't seen
anything out in the open to express themselves on other than the one
plan introduced, the Gonsalves-Moretti Bill, which is in reality a
half a billion dollar tax increase.
Q
Do you have some plans for mobilizing public opinion on
behalf of your program?
A
No, just do my best to -- to make public and call the people's
attention to this.
8
Governor, in view of the difficulty of getting movement
in the past, in private negotiations, do you see any merit then in a
bi-partisan task force to look at tax reform made up of Assemblymen --
members of both parties as proposed?
A
I'll listen to anything in that regard. I believe
that
there are a great many Democrats upstairs who would like to get --
deal with these very real problems and get them solved and who them-
selves are disturbed about the lack of leadership in approaching
these problems.
Q
Governor, in light of the fact that youssay withholding
will be part of this new tax reform proposal, what is your opinion
of the Bagley Bill now being stalled in Assembly Committee?
A
Well, I'm in full support of that bill. Remember this,
that the wihhholding was only apart of tax reform last year simply
because it was a convenient way to find additional revenues for the
property tax relief that we tried to offer. But remember that my
reason for giving in in withholding and including it in that program
was the need the state has for it now to meet its cash flow problems.
And therefore, for sometime I warned on that subject that by the coming
fall the state would not be able to borrow what it needed in those low
spots to meet cash flow. Therefore, the passage of withholding
separately since both parties in any proposals for tax reform have
advocated withholding, there is no reason why that cannot be passed.
separately without any decision being made as to the use of the funds.
But the fund would be available then to solve the cash flow problem.
Now, they failed to do this in January, which they could have done
in three days, and by failing to do this we now have even had to
advance because of the economic slump from the fall -- we will have
to go to tax warrants or tax anticipation notes in August at the
latest, and possibly as early as July. Now they are coming down to
-3-
the deadline in which if they don't implement it very soon we won't
even be able to implement withholding by January 1, which would head
off another year of having to -- use this device to meet our cash
flow problem. And I'm -- I'm in favor of the Bagley Bill because
this bill will give us tax -- will give us withholding, meet our
cash flow problem not for this year, that's too late, due to the
irresponsibility of the leadership that failed to get at this problem,
but it will make it only necessary for the one year, if they pass it,
and that still leaves totally unresolved the use of the increased
revenues.
D
Well, Governor, you have agreed that half of the windfall
from withholding will be used for construction. Now that -- to that
extent your program would include a net increase in taxes, would it
not?
A
Well, the windfall is a one-time fund which I had always
advocated should totally be given back to the taxpayers, it was an
opportunity to give them back some money even though it is legitimately
tax owed, I have said, however, that in this time of stringency
where we are faced with some problems of capital construction and
we can't meet them in this time of economic slump, that I was willing
to sit down and negotiate out a use of this money and hopefully a
split between a return to the taxpayer and the providing of the funds
for some capital construction, particularly in the area of education.
And I am, I decided myself, perfectly willing to have this particular
factor put in the bill to show good faith and show the willingness
to compromise on that measure by proposing a split.
Q
So there would not be an offset to that amount then and
to that extent, as I asked before, then there would be a net increase
in taxes for the one year?
A
Well, no, you are talking about the windfall as the tax
that is owed for the previous year.
Q
Yes, you always called that double taxation and you were
opposed to --
A
No, no, I never called it double taxation, I said it is an
opportunity -- I said, number one, that those people down over the
years on the other side who wanted to use that to pay -- as a gimmick
to pay for on-going governmental expenses, knowing that once it was
used up in the first year they then had to increase taxes the next year
-4-
to aarry on with those on-going programs, that this was a gimmick.
Now this -- we are proposing a one-time use for this capital construc-
tion, but there is no question it is a tax, that is legitimately owed
in the previous year. But the switch to withholding does make it pos-
sible for you to return all or part of that money to the taxpayers
because government is -- it is an-going business. There comes no
end of the line. So it is just a chance to give the people some
relief and bonus themselves in that switchover.
8
Governor, what evidence do you have of great public opinion
clamoring for tax relief this year as compared with last year and
compared with welfare reform?
A
Well, I can only point to the survey recently that said 64
per cent of the people demanded tax relief, said government costs too
much and even answered a subsequent question in the poll to the
effect that they would support a taxpayer's revolt. They felt so
strongly on this subject.
Q
What poll is that, Governor?
A
It was in the -- I can't recall which poll it was, but
all your papers printed it and whether the electronic media carried it
or not, I don't know, I don't get to watch all of it.
8
Governor, isn't this pretty late to start a new bill through?
30 days to go.
A
Well, Squire, we did our best and with the Senate group
that was working on an attempt to come up with something we held off
just as long as we could to give them a chance. I understand they had
a meeting last night and there are just some unresolved differences
and they have concluded they cannot resolve their differences.
8
Governor, what you mention as the support is a poll saying
we want taxes cut. But do you have any evidence there is a similar
type of wide support to increase the income and sales taxes?
A
Well, I can point to polls that we ourselves took in connec-
tion with last year's program, and almost 80 per cent of the people
were demanding a cut in the property tax and I would have a hunch
that's gone up since then because the property taxes have gone up
since then in almost all of the state. The same people, walmost 80
per cent, said that as a substitute tax they preferred the sales tax.
The next highest percentage, considerably lower, but the next higher
percentage said an increase in the income tax to bring this about.
I don't think there is any question, anyone who's talked to the
-5-
public -- I dontt th:
there is any question th.
the people of
California know that the property tax -- well, frankly it is approaching
the bankruptcy point. Local governments are talking now of a further
increase and beonomists -- and if you want to check with some of the
campus economists, will tell you that there gets a certain percentage
of market value of property in which you have approached the point of
no return and it is no longer possible or practical to own property.
Q
Governor, under your compromise bill that's going to be
introduced, will people owning very expensive homes receive less of a
tax break than they would have under your original plan?
A
If I recall the formula, I should wait until they give you the
particulars -- if I recall the formula that we are talking about, is one
that ranges from a hundred per cent relieve at the bottom up to about
a minimum of 20 per cent. I -- this is -- the 20 per cent or -- is
apt to be a little increased by however the county relief should turn
out, but I remember last year, as I think everyone came out with at
least a minimum of -- between 20 and 25 per cent and traveled to about --
at the bottom as much as 40 per cent, so this is one of the major
thanges. in the formula, that it now goes -- ranges from a hundred per
dent to about the same figure at the top.
Q
Governor, will yourprogram have a minimum income tax?
A
I think it does, yes, we have always included that. We did
last year.
Q
How about the statewide property tax for schools? Is
that in as it was last year?
A
No.
Q
It is not?
A
No.
Q
You said it would have a hundred per cent at the bottom.
How do you define the bottom? Where is the cutoff point?
A
Well, I don't know know at what price home it
begins to decline from a hundred per cent. But down roughly at
what -- oh, according to what the tax rolls are, the lowest bracket
there
of homes. There/would be total forgiveness of any property tax.
Q
Incidentally, these figures, $15,000, that's cash value,
not assessed value, right?
A
That's right, yes.
Q
Governor, another topic?
A
Yes.
-6-
Q
Figures in 10 Los Angeles County show at registration for
18 to 20 year olds is running over 60 per cent for Democrats and just
over 18 per cent for Republicans. Statewide figures are very similar.
What are the Republicans doing to try to counter this trend?
A
Well, I haven't had too many meetings with the State
Republican Committee on this. I know they have some plans for
contacting young people. I would suggest that that would indicate
that there has been some politicalization of education and not as has
been charged, my responsibility or that I have been responsible for
that.
2
You say the Democrats are intentionally directing their
efforts toward the college campuses?
A
Oh, no, I just think that there's been a sort of a liberal
approach in -- at the educational level. I don't know what per-
centage. I'm not going to blanket indict all teachers or professors
by any manner or means, but I think this has been evident for a number
of years. Frankly, I don't understand young people other than
misinformation doing this, because most young people, if I understand
their complaints against a great big government that is unresponsive
to their needs, that is impossible for them to contact, regimentation,
interference with personal freedom, all of these things can be laid
to the some 37 years out of the last 29 that the Democrats as a party
have actually been in control of government in America and the
Republican team is the loyal opposition of power even though we have
managed to elect two presidents in that period, one of them only had
one two-year period in which he had a friendly legislature. It
would seem to me that if the students would really engage in a
search for truth, they'd find that the Republicans have been campaign-
ing for and asking for the same things that the students are now asking
for and here they seem to be throwing their lot in with the very people
that caused what theydon't like.
3
Governor, knowing your own politicalpbhilosophy and back-
ground, however, when you were a young man and had you the opportunity
to register between 18 and 21, wouldn't you probably have registered
Democrat?
A
Oh, and I did when I became 21, but then I had a very rough,
touch Irishman father who had been a Democrat all of his life, and
I'm quite sure that he had an influence on me, but also I think there
was a difference then, and to difference now. I have -- my first vote
-7-
was cast the first t. for Franklin Delano Roos elt who ran on a
platform that, I believe, has been the platform of theRepublican
party for quite sometime. If you'll check back you will find that
in 1932 the Democratic platform called for a 25 per cent reduction in
federal spending. It called for a reduction in the power of govern-
ment. It called for a decentralization and a return to local and
state governments and to the individual of the powers they claim had
been unjustly seized by the federal government. Now I've suggested
to our party that we ought to use that platform smmetime because it
is brand new, it's never been used.
(Laughter)
Q
Governor, another topic. Do you believe that the bombing
of the office of a Salinas attorney as a direct result of his having
attempted to testify against the CRLA?
A
Well, if it wasn't there certainly has been a big stretch
of coincidence there. This lawyer, incidentally, is one who has --
who founded the first Legal Aid Society in that area. This is a lawyer
who has devoted a great deal of his time and his practice to helping
the poor. As a matter of fact, in just -- just recently he took
CE referance from CRLA six individual cases of poor people and repre-
sented them in their cases because CRLA was too busy to handle their
cases. Now he testified against CRLA and this @- this act followed.
I'm not one, you know -- this is a matter for law to determine.
But I think that the coincidence in addition to which there are other
witnesses who took the same tone, who have been receiving telephone
threats and har rassment of that kind since.
8
Governor, yesterday the police in Salinas arrested a young
man in connection with that bombing and they also said that there
apparently was no connection between the bombing and the CRLA situation.
They said that the young man had a -- had a beef with a lawyer, Mr.
Marino, on a default proceedings.
A
Well, could be then, then the coincidence would be quite
remarkable, but I think it is something to be decided in court.
8
In view of that do you still think there is a need for an
FBI investigation?
A
Yes. I might add, you might want to look at -- into the
Whler report on CRLA originally because I believe there was some
individual, as I understand, who was at one time represented by CRLA.
Q
Are you in favor of the federal government guaranteeing a
loan to Lockheed for $250 million dollars?
-8-
A
Yes.
2
Why?
A
Well, there are a great many ramifications in that and I
think that the effect at this time in the economy would be rather
disastrous if a corporation of that size, and the many contracts it
has, should suffer economic collapse or as has even been suggested,
bankruptcy. And right now I just have to tell you that I am in
favor of the SST and I'm in favor of the government doing something
to rescue the aerospace industry, particularly in California, because
we are in great danger of that great pool of technical skill and tallent
dissipating and scattering because of the strain and the hundreds of
thousands who are unemployed.
Q
Governor, is there kind of a Republican socialism that you
support -- you know, because really private enterprise is the most
efficient survives. I know you don't believe in underwriting an
income for an individual.
A
No.
0
But then is this a special kind of socialism for large
corporations?
A
No, I think this is an emergency measure much as the Penn
Central was an emergency measure, I think in this particular instance
you have a firm that is engaged in a great many defense contracts
right now and as I say, I think the ramifications go far beyond
anything that perhaps we even have all the details, and perha ps a
better way could have been found --
8
Even --
A
-- had someone acted earlier.
Q
Even if they get inefficient?
And they have been proven to
be so?
A
Well, I think that if you are going to underwrite the loan
I think you also take some action with regard to the inefficiency
and I think this is inherent in the -- in the Government Act or what
they are requesting.
8
Another subject.
Q
No. Would you favor then Senator Cranston's proposal that
the management of Lockheed be removed if the government is going to
subsidize them, and put -- and government supervise who the managemont
should be?
A
Well, I think that this is slightly different than exerting
-Q-
some controls to make sure that the company itself tightens up where
there are obvious indications of mismanagement or looseness. But
Senator Cranston has a way of swinging with a broad brush aimed at
the biggest headline possible. And Senator Cranston's bleeding for
the aerospace industry leaves me a little cold because he hasn't done
very much for the aerospace industry since he's been in Washington.
Q
Now? O. K. Going back to the subject ofyouth, Governor,
on this subject of the Youth Opportunity Centers which HRD is in the
process of closing or consolidating into the major centers, you men-
tioned that the problem of youth and big government and your feelings
towards it -- I wonder what your reaction would be to the fact that
in light of the staff cuts in the consolidation practices -- process,
for examp San Francisco which has been cut by a third, and is being
cut by another third, how you feel the youth is going to feel when
they find that the programs that were there to find them jobs are
being curtailed and consolidated. How do you think they are going
to react to --
A
Well, if they learn the truth they will find the difference.
Now a few years ago a bi-partisan piece of legislation co-authored,
if I recall correctly, by former Assembly Speaker Unruh, created HRD.
And it was created to fill a gap and to be an agency in the state
government that was directed really at job finding and job training
and coordinating all of these activities. And this is exactly what
is going on. And youth employment is being taken in -- everyone
emphasizes -- not everyone, but those who have chosen to editorialize
at the moment about this, have only focused on the closing of the
job corps centers and have made no effort to find out that at HRD
the emphasis and the number one priority is going to be on this
youth feature. And this was what the agency was set up to do.
And what we are trying to do here, I thin. is an indication of the
difference between our administration add what's gome on traditionally
in government. Government traditionally starts something new and a
new program designed to fill a need. But never closes down anything
that has failedor has not been particularly successful in the past in
this regard. And we have created a new over-all program here in
state government to handle all the features of job seeking with
employees that are known as job agents and all this is is a transfer
of the activities from this other program into HRD on a statewide
basis.
-10-
Q
But with t. staff cuts, the fact they won't be able to
do as good a job as they are doing now finding the jobs with fewer
amount of staff, I don't see how that could --
A
I don't think that that's true, when you talk about staff
cuts.
We are not talking about staff cuts in HRD.
Q
No, in the youth opportunity centers themselves.
A
Well, because they are geing replaced by this being taken
over by HRD. That was what HRD was created to do.
0
Governor --
A
It has 11,000 employees, I think, at last count.
D
In the past few weeks you sent off a great many letters
and telegrams to the Nixon Administration complaining about the OEO
Commission investigation CRLA and asking for investigations. of the
federal government of one thing and another. There hasn't seemed
to be very much response. How do you measure your influence in
Washington on this basis?
A
Well, I tell you, I'm satisfied with my relationship with
Washington and I'm a little amused at some editorial comment to the
effect it would still try to pretend that there is some fued or some
difference going on. There isn't. Butjust to make sure that the
letters got there all right and the telegrams, I've now sent Ed Meese
instead of a letter. And he's in Washington now.
0
Buy the question is what -- no letters seem to be c coming
back, at least you are not releasing them. Are they not getting
responded to or even read maybe?
A
No, and some of the letters have been responded to with
phone calls and some will not be responded to with this personal
visit because the outcome of some of those letters was this personal
visit, by Ed. Meese.
Q
Has there been any action, though?
A
Ed isn't back yet, let me find out. But actually in the
latest problem that seems to be of concern with regard to use in
the conformity issue and all, there is no estrangement between us,
and HEW or anyone else.
Q
Have you heard from Mr. Mitchell yet about your request
for an FBI investigation?
A
No, that just went off so we -- we haven't had that.
Q
How about from Mr. Carlucci, Governor, on your onitial
request for a joint investigation into this?
A
Well, Mr. Meese is meeting with him on that subject.
So
-11-
I'll know more when
}
gets back.
Q
Governor, last night at the Town Hall you didn't seem to have
what could be called a good house by almost any description. Could
you -- do you have any idea what happened to you on the way to the
actorm
forum there?
A
No, I thought -- I thought it was pretty good. That was --
that's a great big barn over there. I thought the audience was pretty
good for that type of activity, but I also call to your attention we
are guests. You'd have to ask the Chamber of Commerce. This is a
new feature they have started, and this was only the second meeting
they have had. There were a few minutes there when the box office
was a little bit too good.
8
Governor, are you aware that a contingent, businessman went
to Washington to oppose the funds to Lockheed and this morning Gordon
Rule on the front of the Chronicle opposed it and said they should
go bankrupt?
A
Oh, I know that there are a number of businessmen and, as
I say, perhaps there might have been a better way to handle this
earlier and if -- some action had been taken earlier, but I know that
certainly there are companies that believe they cald build those
airplanes, there are other companies who would like to see the motors
built in America instead of England. Whatever the mistake was, that
led to this, there is, of course, a body of evidence on the other
side not only regarding the defense contracts, but as you saw the
other day one of our astronauts now representing an airline who was
speaking so highly of the plane itself and of the great need for that
plane, and particularly by his own airline, so I think you can --
you can take your choice.
Q
Governor, there is a rumor going around, I wonder if you could
maybe clarify it for us, there is a report that you are planning an
replacing Gil Sheffield with Louis Uhler, is there any truth to that?
A
We haven't any meetings whatsoever on -- on the replacement
for Gil Sheffield, what we are going to do.
Q
Would you consider Mr. Uhler?
A
I'll consider everybody when the names come in. You'd be
syrprised how many names we throw in a bucket and not only from within
government, but from new blood outside, and earnestly try to find
the guy that we think could do the best job.
SQURRE: Any more questions? Thank you, Governor.
000
-12-
6/18
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD JUNE 10, 1971
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcriptof the Governor's press conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to thepress as
rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made
and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
o0o
GOVERNOR REAGAN: There's more action out in the halld
where the school kids are. You should have been outthere. People
were being trampled.
Q
Mr. Beilenson joining you today?
A
No, no.
Q
You got an opening statement?
A
No.
Q
Let's fire then. Senator Bellenson said flatly yesterday
you don't know what you are talking about in saying that his measure
would cost a billion dollars more.
A
Well, any time Senator Beilenson or any of the rest of you
would like to sit down with Mr. Carlson, he'll be able to show you
what has already been worked out. They burned a lot of midnight
oil doing this and show you the figures based on this. Mr. Beilenson's
lwe
program, which as I pointed out totalled up to a 993 million dollar
difference was not all increases, as I pointed out, that is the
difference between his increase and what our program would have
decreased. His would have gone to per capita average of 85 dollars
and the per capita average upon which we based those figures is --
is about a 31 dollar difference in that. So this is how -- how the
figures were worked out, but I suggest and I would advise any of you
to see Mr. Carlson who will give you a complete figure basis upon
which we conclude this.
Q
Isn't the state in kind of serious trouble when two reasonably
intelligent men who at this -- the figures which should be the same
and add differently, is there something wrong with their basic
education or what?
A
Well, yes, there is one thing very wrong. I'm sure that the
-1-
Senator is very sin
and believes what he's
ig, but philosophically
he is opposed to our concept of welfare reform. This again comes
down to that philosophy of those who believe that government should
constantly be on the shelling out end. They have refused from the
very first to even consider our proposals or to look into them. And
the plain truth is ours are the result of ayyear or more of study and
work with the counties and with county welfare people on this program
to arrive at all of this, and somebody comes along and thinks he can
sit in a couple of committee meetings with some hearings and have
his staff working around without the knowledge or the background of a
year's research and study and them come up with some figures upon
which they could base such a serious move.
Carleson's
Q
I was speaking of Mr. Carson's arithmetic people and Mr.
Post's arithmetic people, they are only, you know --
A
I'll go by the same thing. Mr. Post's people have not --
hadethe same experience of working for a year in a task force on this
entire program. And the wide differenteTthere, I am totally confident
and I would suggest, as I say, that you find out the basis for those
figures. Tomorrow there is going to be such a hearing.
Q
Governor, you mentioned the counties and yet they stood
up and opposed your legislation yesterday?
A
They opposed mainly on one basis. Now some of you did
a pretty good job of trying to imply that the counties were terribly
down and everything that we wanted to do. They are opposed to the
closed end appropriation, they fear it. Even in spite of the amend-
ments that we have. But also that is not general. We have found
that a great many counties, and there are a great many counties,
supervisors and welfare directors that are totally in sympathy with
ours. The San Mateo County Supervisors have just endorsed our program.
They claim they have studied our figures as against their first fear
that they would lose over a million dollars and have found that they
will actually gain money. Some of those counties supervisors, I'm
sure, were sincere in here the other day, there were some, like
the representative from Sacramento County, that I don't think he'd
like it if we were putting everybody on salary.
Q
Governor, is this welfare bill better than no welfare reform
bill?
A
No. The difference mainly between the Beilenson welfare
program and ours is that his is not welfare reform. And for that
-2-
reason what we are discussing here is acarlemic because his bill isn't
going any place. It requires a letter from me to move and since it
is not welfare reform it is not going to get such a letter, so we are
right back where we started.
Q
Governor, you will not accept this bill?
A
I can't.
8
At all?
A
No., after what I --
Q
Even if it means no welfare reform this year.
A
Well, it doesn't mean that. We are -- they still want to
come down and discuss with us what we can do, they have -- they have
said that they are for welfare reform, but I would be quite hypocritical
if I gave this a letter to move this out and seemingly put my stamp
on it as accepting this was welfare reform which instead it is a
gigantic increase in the cost of welfare with really no work provisions
and with no cost control provisions of the kind that we have in ours.
Q
Senator Marks and Senator Behr both said that the:Beilenson
bill has -- that 11 out of its 15 provisions are reform proposals
thaken from the Republican bills including Senator Burgener's bill.
They say it is a good start at welfare reform. Now, do you disagree
with them or their --
A
You bet I disagree with them. First place, sure, he took
something out of everything. He took a few of the things out ofours.
But he ignored all the things that would make the costcoontrol
provisions of the program work. Now, his program, for example, in
state gosts, his program would come out at adding 258 million dollars
to the cost to the state. Then thero are 25 million dollars of
savings in there mostly which come from those provisions of our bill
that he chose. But 25 from 58 still leaves it a bigger increase in cost
than the state should undergo. I was sorry to see that the two
Senators felt they had to vote for his, and they did it with a complete
lack of knowledge of this particular subject. They know only what
they have heard sitting up there in a few committee hearings. They
absolutely have no knowledge whatsoever of our program.
8
Governor, with all due frankness, should H. Mr.. Carlson didn't
make a very good showing. Got everybody all muddled up there.
A
Well, I've spoken, Squire, to him about this, and I think --
and I cautioned him that I think what we really are suffering from is
someone who has been dealing with this for all of this time. It is
too easy for him to
P
k from his knowledge at
realize that
those who are hearing it for the first time need a better explanation.
In other words, he -- he assumes more understanding on the part of the
listener and doesn't realize it comes from his own knowledge of this
subject and I have cautioned him and told him to try and find an approach
whereby he can realize that he's starting -- or you are starting and
hearing him from the point that he started from a year ago, before
we knew anything about this.
Q
Governor, Senator Beilenson says that many of the Republican
proposals are in there and that the only real difference is the open
ended versus the closed end budget. Do you disagree with this?
A
Oh, I disagree completely and I think it just shows his lack
of understanding of welfare reform or even the welfare problem.
O'
Governor, it would appear from talking to the leaders of the
Democratic majority in the legislature that there is no reasonable
expectation that they will approve a closed end budget or the
equitable apportionment proposals in your welfare program. Is there
anything short of that that would put in controls that would satisfy
you?
A
Yes, the thing that they haven't done yet. They have
revealed that from the very first, including when they didn't want me
to go up there and talk to them about it -- they have a resistance no
matter what they say, they have a resistance to welfare reform.
And the -- I thought the proof of that was, and that maybe more of you
should have observed it, was the fact that they didn't even wait
for our welfare reform proposals to come out on television and before you
the members of the press, and reject it. And there has been no
legitimate effort to come to us and say, here, this is unacceptable and
that is unacceptable, we can work out -- let's work out what we can
in a welfare reform program, minus this or that. As I have said so
often, come down and let's see. Are they prepared to givo us 60
per cent, 70 per cent, 80 per cent, half, none, and Senator Beilenson
tried to pretend that this is what he had done. Maybe he thinks
honestly that he did this. But to pick out a few things out of a wel-
fare program and incorporate them with his and leave out the very
features of the program that could provide the controls we need and
leave -- it being an increase in the cost of welfare instead of
what we are seeking, a decrease, we were agreed on one thing although
not to the same degree that he proposed. We both agree that there
-4-
should be an increase in the grants to thetruly needy. He wants to
make a bigger single increase frankly than the State of California
can afford or the counties can affford because he's going to dump
around 83 million dollars additional cost on the counties, and we are
looking for, th the next few days, if the connties want to listen
and if they are curious about this, to expaaining to them -- they have
been so cost conscious where we are concerned, to ask them to be
as suspicious of this as they have been of us. But really that would
be academic, too, because as I say his bill isn't going anyplace.
Q
Mr. Moretti says he is opposed to an AFDC grant increase.
If that feature were taken out of the Beilenson bill would it be more
palatable to you?
A
He's opposed to any increase?
8
Any increase.
A
Well, then we are out of conformity again.
D
No, he sgys 21.4 per cent.
A
Oh, this is what we are talking about. We are talking
about a similar thing that continues --
Q
But nothingon top of that.
A
That's right. Now, we hope that -- as we have said many
times in our briefings before, we hope that a savings developed and
we believe that they can develop more than the figures we have given
that we will then be able to do more and bring these people, the
truly needy, up as we develop the administrative savings and so forth.
Q
If the grant were deleted from the Beilenson bill, would
it then be more palatable with the open end feature?
A
No, I just don't think that the controls are there to hold
this program down.
Q
Governor, the Speaker also said that you will have to sign
any welfare reform bill that the legislature sends you because you
made so many speeches you really want welfare reform, and will lose
creidibility if you didn't. sign it.
A
I'm not going to lose any credibility, the difference is
if a legitimate welfare reform comes and does -- all or even a good
part, if that's all we can get of what it is we propose, no, I'd
sign it. I'm not going to sign something that is phoney, that
pretends to be welfare reform and let the people of California wake
up and find they're faced with a gigantic tax increase, that they
didn't have welfare reform and the Speaker is talking again --
sometimes he says things so quickly he hasn't had time to think.
Q
DIBS the
1
nson bill such a bill?
A
What?
Q
Is the Beilenson bill such a bill?
A
That's why I won't give it a letter, it is not welfare reform.
8
Won't the costs go up, Governor, without anyllegislation
anyway, with none of the controls?
A
Without any legislation well, we have a certain -- remember
that there is a certain difference -- we have some administrative
things. We'd be better off if we had legislative support for them
because undoubtedly some of our administrative moves will be tested
in court. And the OEO funded lawyers have proven that they can shop
around until they find their kind of judge, on some of these issues.
D
Governor, how do you define the word "reform? And why
doesn't Mr. Beilenson's bill come up to that definition?
A
Well, reform has got to have the provisions in it that enable
us to stop faaud, enable us to control and reduce the support that
we are giving to people with earnings, set a limit on the height of
earnings. Itthas got to be ablento give us some controls over eligi-
bility. This is reform. The things that the people object to today
and it is very strange, the people are better informed on this than
most people realize. The people by and large, according to all the
polls we have taken, show that they know that those with true need are
not getting enough. They are aware of that. But they are also
aware that thereaare the great percentage of people getting welfare
who are not entitled to it who shouldn't be getting it and that there
is a percentage of fraud and cheating. That it is too easy to get
on and the San Francisco Examiner, who has a reporter now who is
proving every day how easy it is to get on. I don't know whether
you read each other's papers, but he's down getting on welfare as a
matter of an eight-hour day and widting his experiences up and they
are quite entertaining reading. He told of one acquaintance he made
there that has five birth certifieates and is drawing welfare in
three counties inthe Bay area on three of those birth certificates.
He'll probably get the other two into production as soon as he can
move around a little more.
Q
Will you be selling those papers outside the door, Governor?
(Laughter)
A
Well, I thought that now and then you gaght to hear either
Mr. Agnew or myself when there is an opportunity say something nice
about the press.
-6-
D
Your dialogue seems to have been condemnation of the
Senate so far. It happens to be reform welfare. How are your
relations with the Assembly on that same --
A
I've just been condemning the action on Senator Beilenson's
bill, has not being welfare reform. So far I havan't seen anything --
it's been on the Senate side. The Assembly hasn't been dealing with
that problem. But --
Q
Are you having any dialogue --
A
I think that the Democratic leadership has let this session
ofthe legislature come down to this point a few weeks before what
should be the termination of the session with less progress Than in any
session that I found anyone can remember.
3
Governor, don't you think it is important, though, that in
Senator Beilenson's proposal he does have an earned income limit?
A cause for relative responsibility?
A
Yes, this is one of the things that he has taken, yes.
Q
150 per cent limitation?
A
These are some of the things. But again, I suggest to
you that Mr. Carlson add his people have literally worked around the
clock from the few days notice that we had to analyze this, and see
what it would do and we don't do this from any standpoint of wanting
to oppose it. Very frankly, my first reaction was anything that gets
a bill out that we can start working on would have been acceptable,
would have been fine. And if they could have found benefits in this
that -- that keredleading toward the goal that we had hoped was a
common gcal, they'd have been the first to say SO. They can't dispute
their own figures, they didn't set out to disprove this, they set out
to find what does it do.
8
Governor, are you really prepared to compromise? I mean
really sit down and accept some features that you don't like just to
get a welfare reform bill?
A
Yes, I think the proof of that is the amendments that we put
in already with regard to meeting county protests. We felt and I still
believe our figures. I believe the counties were safe. I believe
the countieswere not going to have any cost imposed on them. We
could not win their acceptance of that. The counties have had a long
history of mistrust of Sacramento, and I'm afraid based on too many
facts in the past. Maybe they are not prepared to accept that there
-7-
is someone here now who doesn't want to dump something on their backs.
And I think the amendments that we put in indicate that we were not
wedded to this. As I said from the first, we were willing to let
this go into legislative process and we would accept this kind of
compromise. What I cannot accept às a compromise is a pretense.
That is not -- just as last year when they heldthe budget for ransom
and everyone -- not everyone, let me say there were certain editorial
comments to the effect that I was stubborn and wouldn't compromise.
Well, what they proposed was not a compromise, the budget was being
held for ransom on the basis of our tax reform program. And their
idea of a compromise was that instead of it being a wash increase
taxes to pay for a decrease taxlin property. They wanted the to increase
the taxes not totally decrease the property tax, and have 300mmillion
dollars of increased taxes for increased spending.
Now, I don't think that's a compromise. Compromise would
have been if they'd have said, we'd rather raise this tax and that
one, or raise another one more and this one less, make adjustments
of that kind. I'm wide open to that kind of compromise. And the same
is true with welfare reform.
0
Are youwilling to compromise, Governor, why wouldn't you
be willing to compromise on the Beilenson bill?
A
Well because as I say it is not welfare reform. It does
not even approach it. How do you start compromising from a program
that now is going to save 335 million dollars modest estimate, if it is
implemented, and one that is going to increase the -- increase the
present cost of wèlfare by some 600 million dollars? Which means
that you are automatically saying to the people of California that they
have got to undergo another property tax increase at the county level,
they have got to undergo a state tax increase and in reality they have
got to shell out more money for the federalgovernment's share.
Now, that's that's pretty far apart to start compremising.
Q
Governor, had the county supervisors who were here yesterday
been hoodwinked by the Beilenson bill, they seem to have some support
for it.
A
I can't give the only thing I heard them, myself, and then
I had to go by what you fellows ran, but the only thing I heard was
that it did not contain the closed end appropriation. And the other
thing is I have to say they cannot possibly have done what our staff
did. We only got this a few days ago. And they have been working
as I say, around the clock since to put it together. They started --
first we were given a four-paragraph memorandum, and on that four
paragraph memorand" the first clue was alrea there that just
looking at that our people came up with an increase in costs both to
the counties and to the state.
Then this was followed by the more
detailed plan. And then -- and they have only had acouple of days
now.
These peopleefrom the county could not possibly have had this
and been able to do more than give it a surface look.
Q
Governor, you said that San Mateo County supervisors supported
your program. and yesterday Mr. Carlson said that at least the
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in Riverside County also supported
your program.
A
Theresare a number of others.
8
Could you name some of the counties that support the
program?
A
Oh, Bob -- Alameda County I think is one that's supporting
us.
We have had some -- we have had some partial support -- we have
e
had a great many counties like San Diego County, Los Angeles County,
many of the bigger counties that favor our program but withhold an
actual endorsement because they still don't like the -- the closed end
appropriation.
Q
Governor, from the beginning you proposed to balance the
budget for the coming fiscal year partially through he savings you
had hoped to realize through your welfare reform program. Itwnow
appears that there will not be any welfare reform, at least by the
time the budget must be adopted, and your stand today not give a
letter seems to seal that fate. How then does that place the
condition of your budget, doesn't it aggravate the deficit problem
and what will you do about it?
A
Well, gentlemen, we are coming down to this place, I don't
think that the fate is sealed on welfare reform. It is still there,
it is where it was yesterday before that meeting. We are still willing
to meet on welfare reform. We have said since we had to report the
decline in revenues upon which the budget was based that there has been
a continued decline in revenues, that it can still be balanced by welfare
reform. No increase to the budget, and then finding the replacement
income for the lost tax revenues through withholding. Now the choice
is theirs. If they elect to send down a budget without welfare
reform then they have made the decision that there must be additional
revenues found.
8
Governor, have you exhausted all your administrative remedies
for welfare reformor are you now going to explore what you can do by
regulations you have now been prevented to do temporarily?
A
Oh, no, we have been continuing all this time. We are
proceeding in the process of implementing the administrative reforms.
We will go forward with those, but -- in otherwords, if they don't --
if they don't pass thelegislation this doesn't mean that we have lost
the total amount of savings from welfare reform.
Q
Are you going to try to find --
A
Well, it will -- the estimate of the cost of the Burgener
bills or the savings is 89 million dollars. If we do not get the
legislation we are out 89 million dollars out of balance.
0
Governor, if, as you say, that the only objection such
counties as San Diego and Los Angeles have to your program is the
closed end appropriation, would you be willing to accept a welfare
reform program if it did not include closed end?
A
Well, there is one thing I learned when I was negotiating
for the union against those tycoons in the motion picture business.
If you are going to sit down to negotiate out a welfare program, you
are sure not going to tell somebody in advance what you might or might
not be willing to compromise on. And gentlemen, you just have to
realize you have me in the -- in the position right now of willing to
sit down and mett on the basis of welfare reform legislation. But
I ain't tipping my mitt.
will
Q
Governor, how much $1 that closed end appropriation save
the state each year?
A
I couldn't put a figure on it. Actually, that's one of the
control devices.
0
You don't have the figure for it?
A
No, that is -- that is aimed at helping insure the Besponsi-
bility of the county welfare workers to help control the case load.
Right now as -- as the reporter -- and he's one of many, a number of
your papers have done the same thing, some of your T. V. outlets have
had people go down and at least make a one-time attempt to prove they
can get on welfare. This is part of the attempting to tighten that
great leak where it is just easy to walk in and -- and get welfare.
Q
You must have a figure, how much it is going to save?
PAUL BECK: Equitable apportionment. That's the device
by which you then apportion the people out, that's the equitable
apportionment and a closed end appropriation gottegitNer. They are
both tied together, it is not only eligibility in this.
A
It is not only eligibility, but it is the -- it is the
-10-
matter ofthe size
the grants that are will.
,ly given to someone
who has outside earnings. If the county welfareyworker who is doing
this knows that every time he does it he is running the risk of taking
dollars away from people already on welfare.
Q
Governor, Mr. Carlson yesterday tried to explain this equit-
able apportionment to the Senate Committee and how much the state would
save by it. And he failed to do that, can you explain it?
ED MEESE: I think the important thing is equitable appor-
tionment and closed end budget does not per say save money. It merely
guarantees that in a given fiscal year the state and the counties
will not paymore than the amount budgeted. It is an expenditure
congrol device. It is not per se: a money saving device.
0
What is the guarantee that the counties wouldn't have to
paymore?
PAUL BECK: That's written into the legislation as one
of the amendments that we submitted.
Where I suggest, if there
are enough people interested in it, why, I'll be very happy to set
up a briefing with Mr. Carlson and his technicians so you can really get
you know, if you don't have your -- if you don't understand what we
are trying to do, we would be more than happy to do that and if you
are interested, we will do it.
Q
Governor, Senator Beilenson's bill isthe only major bill
that is still alive. Your bills are dead, in his committee, which
would have to pass on any welfare plan. You seem to give him no --
no credit for sincerity, wanting welfare reform. How do you expect
to be able to compromise on any sort of welfare reform program this
year?
A
Well, I didn't say that I didn't give him any sincerity,
I said I didn't think he shared our view of welfare reform and
philosophically, perhaps, there is a difference there. If he truly
wants welfare reform or any of the others, and I'm quitte sure there
are some upstairs, I'm not blanket indicting the entire legislature,
we can have it. And that the terrible thing is the people want it
so desperately and we know that. We have taken our own surveys.
We know that without regard to party differences, the number of people
in California according to the polls that want this welfare reform
are approximately 85 per cent.
Q
Could you not use that bill as the vehicle for that
compromise?
-11-
A
Well --
0
With amendments?
A
Yesterday I sort of indicated that if that action took place --
you remember I made my statement before his was even passed out, that
as long as there was a vehicle you could, but remember, he has control
also as the author of the amendments. And he seems pretty adament.
So it is -- there is just no sense in letting that proceedre because
it just doesn't have merit.
Q
Governor, just one more try on this regulations question.
Can you now turn to the regulations, did you leave yourself some --
some loopholes whereby you could say, well, we don't get the legislation
we want, let's do it administratively. Is there any part of the
program that's now been shelved -- any part that cannot be done
administratively?
A
No.
Q
Have you exhausted --
A
WE have already dAvided our welfare reform, what is administra-
tive and that we are proceeding with. The other part was put into
Burgener's bills that required legislation. Now, that's the part
that is stymied. We are proceeding with this.
D
But 1s there any part of the Burgener bill that could have
beendone by regulation?
A
I don't think so or it wouldn't have been in those bills.
8
Well, some of them were either legislation or regulations,
some of those proposed. I was just wondering whether some of them --
A
Remember, some of the court decisions that have already boon
handed down have not been objections to what it was we were trying
to do, but have been -- the court has ruled that it would require
legislation to do it, that it cannot be done administratively.'
Q
New subject?
Q
One more question.
A
There is one more from --
Q
If you are not going to give that bill a letter, are you
going -- is the administration going to attempt to amend it at all
in the Senate Finance Committee? Why bother --
PAUL BECK: You can't go to the Finance Committee.
A
It can't go, can it, without the letter.
ED MEESE:
The letter applies to its present form, I
-12-
believe, Governor.
A
Whatever legislative process can go to work to continue,
hopefully, bringing a welfare reform about, I'm in favor of it.
I don't understand many times all the machinations that go on up there,
but no, I'm in favor of anything that will bring about some welfare
reform.
8
That answered my question.
A
O. K.
2
Governor, I have just one more question on this. If
Beilenson won't let your bills go and you won't let his bill go, then
where is the compromise? You know, you talk compromise but where --
can you give us a hint on where you are willing to compromise?
A
I think you have to start with a bill that actually is
welfare reform, and is isn't.
8
Well, Senator Burgener said yesterday he felt there was a
substantial welfare reform in that bill if cost controls could be
amended into it.
A
Well --
8
This was after the heading.
A
But Senator Beilenson is the author of the bill. If you let
that bill move we are at his mercy.
Q
Senator Burgener said he would talk to Senator Beilenson and
see if he would work out amendments.
A
In the meantime I'll just sit there pen poised and not
signing a letter till somebody talks.
8
Governor, doesn't that letter control only last until the
budget is adopted? I mean once the budget is adopted then the
legislature is free to move on any legislation they want, are they not?
You still have the option of vetoing, I agree, but I mean as far as
this initial letter.
MR. MEESE: Yes.
A
As I say, I'm -- I'm so busy with my own rules and regulations
I don't know all of theirs. I'll have to soon find out what that
does. If so I've got a new crisis.
Q
Governor, you just signed a bill to limit smoking on public
transportation. as As a non-smoker yourself do you have a personal
interest in that legislation?
A
No. And as a matter of fact, I ve -- I've hay-fevered my
way through a few smokers in my vicinity. But it seemed to be a bill
that was quite widely approved upstairs. I've -- I was a little
-13-
worried about how tar does government go in its infringement un pessonal
rights, but at least the bill did say that it was simply to provide
a smoking-free place, some section of the craft that would be for
those people that found a smoke offensive. I couldn't see any reason
to veto it. At the same time Ididn't exactly think that it was the
sort of thing that you'd run up on the flag pole as the greatest triumph
of a legislative session.
(Laughter)
0
You don't ride the bus often yourself?
A
What? Oh, listen, I ride that bus that flies from here
to Los Angeles more than anybody. I'm -- I'm thinking of taking
lessons in flying it one of these days and it applied to all manner
of -- not only buses, airplanes, everything.
0
Governor, I have one more. You appointed Assemblyman
Britschg,
Brischi -- former Assemblyman Brischi to the Unemployment Appeals
Board today. Can you tell us what qualifications he has for that
appointment?
A
Certainly his wide experience in government here, but I
would tell you that he also had a -- had very strong support and
backing from organized labor. And this is of great interest to them
and he was way out and ahead their choice and there were others,
of course, too. He wasn't just a one faction choice, whohad been
seeking that particular post for many --
0
Governor, you are aware that Senator Taft said he's going
to run as a Favorite Son. Are you giving any consideration to running
as a Favorite Son and if not, would you completely rule out the
fact that you would never?
A
No, I've -- that's already bean decided. I've already
informed the President that the delegation that I want to lead to the
convention is one pledged to him. His election. Now, I don't know
what the Ohio situation is, and why Senator Taft feels that being a
Favorite Son is the way to do that, maybe their election rules are
different than ours. To run as a Favorite Son means that you go to
the conventinn technically as a candidate and then of course have the
option af an open convention of throwing your block or trying to
persuade people to be -- to go one way or another, keeping control of
it yourself. No, I've made my pledge to the President, I will take
a delegation pledged to Richard Nixon.
Q
Will you rule out that you wouldn't if conditions change
-14-
somewhat?
A
Conditions aren't going to change, I'm taking a delegation
pledged to Richard Nixon.
Q
You'd expect to arrive at the convention then with nobody
to make a nominating speech in your behalf?
A
That's right. Can't. Because, remember, ender our laws
such a delegation once picked isoon the ballot. And itis on the ballot
on that basis. And it must be voted by the people. We don't do
things in a smoke-filled room here.
Q
Governor, a year or so ago you supported measures to change
the method of selection of judges. Have you given up?
A
No, no, we still intend to continue with that. I know that
the legal profession is thinking in terms of a ballot measure because
it requires a constituional change. No, and I have voluntarily been
practicing the very plan that is not legal and that -- in other words,
that we did not get passed. I have been voluntarily following such
a plan.
SQUIRE: Any more questions?
Q
Governor, as I asked you last month, how's your Judicare
program coming?
A
We will have an announcement on that within the next several
days, I think we will have some information for you.
8
Govefnor, yesterday youmet with Mr. Monagan up in his office
and I assumed the discussion must -- might have been tax reform.
Do you want to talk about it?
A
No, as a matter of fact it wasn't. It was a meeting with
Bob Monagan as the leader of our Assembly group, simply to talk about
this whole thing of where we stand with regard to the budget coming
down to the end of the session, What we can possibly do together to
break the log Jam and have a budget on -- on time. Meet these
various problems. It was a kind of general discussion and one
leading to my trying to find out is there anything I can do with
regard to further fnforming our legislative group.
Q
You were great as Dutch Reagan,'
A
What?
Q
You were great asDutch Reagan on Laught-In.
A
Yeu will notice I didn't have the nerve to go to the preview.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
o0o
-15-