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
118564100
label
Transcripts - 06/09/1970, 06/16/1970, 06/23/1970
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564100
contentType
document
title
Transcripts - 06/09/1970, 06/16/1970, 06/23/1970
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
118564100
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
5d07221f6cd1e15f
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 -
06/09/1970, 06/16/1970, 06/23/1970
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 CO. ERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD
AGAN
HELD JUNE 9, 1970
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corpos 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.)
o0o
GOVERNOR REAGAN:
Isn't it awful, up till last night
here Squire's turned right back into a pumpkin again.
We have
some visitors, Southern California Baptist Yough up here. Glad to
have you here with us.
To open the press conference I'd like to comment briefly
on the state's current financial situation --
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Release No. 300)
Q
In what areas might you go to the Court or in what areas
do you see possible cutback?
A
Oh, I'll tell you, we have had -- had a long session on this
and on some proposals, I haven't seen the following sum-up of this.
And I would just have to confess right at the moment I couldn't pick
them out and tell you where those would be.
Q
Verne Orr yesterday indicated that you would be willing
to go along with no pay raises for higher education faculty members.
Isn't that unfair when other state employees would be receiving a
pay raise?
A
Well, the legislature had made that decision already, and
if they chose to change that then we will have to find other ways,
but you must remember that they have made the change in the budget
as it now stands and while I can take out what they put in, I cannot
put back what they take out.
Q
If they put it back in you won't object to that, if they
find some other way of doing it then?
A
Well, we have turned it over to them now for the legislative
process.
We are open to any suggestion they may make.
-1-
Q
Assembly emocrats charged this morn. .g that these figures
were withheld purposely until after the primary. The answer was that
the economic picture was so clouded you couldn't tell. What about
this welfare act, was that known?
A
The what?
Q
The welfare -- the Medi-Cal increase, couldn't this have been
projected earlier?
A
No, as a matter of fact we were getting those figures
at the time and the same individuals were charging it was withheld
until after the primary are the same individuals who are confident
that it was 173 million deficit without counting welfare because
they themselves didn't know about the welfare situation. Nor did
we.
And they are as accurate in this latest statement as they were
in the first.
Q
Governor, your proposals or Mr. Orr's proposals to the
Joint Committee yesterday wiped out the only 28 million dollar cushion
that was in the next year's budget. How do you propose to operate
without any kind of flexibility at all?
A
Well, it was kind of wiped out by the deficit itself,
that's what you have a cushion for.
And as I said here in my
remarks, I'd like to -- my opening statement, I'd like to point out
the fact that our so-called $141 million dollar deficit was not --
was a deficit only in relation to revenues expected. Actually, we
only have an imbalance of about $85 million because for the third
year in a row we have been balancing budgets with the economies
and the savings that we have been making in the cost of government.
But as I have said in here a number of times, we know that we are
coming to the day, each year gets a little less because each year
there is less fat for us to trim out, the economies are harder to
come by, we know that we are working toward and must come to the day
that we are within the revenues, not within the revenues plus the money
we have been able to save out of the previous year's budget, and this
is just one of those --
Q
Just to pursue it just a little bit further, just as a
matter of practical operations, is it safe to proceed into a new fiscal
year with no cushion in funds whatsoever?
A
It isn't even safe, actually, when you talk about that as a
cushion. It isn't safe to proceed with a cushion that small, and
we have talked for a long time that every time there is a little
-2-
excess money, again those same critics of our budgeting procedure
are the first that come up with wild spending ideas to spend each
dollar several times over. And each time that we have tried to point
out the need and the necessity to have a cushion, we get this until
we realize that if there is a loose dollar around someone's going to
spend it. The truth of the matter is we are still battling with a
situation that was forced on us by a state going to the accrual
bookkeeping system without the adequate reserves that are necessary
to make that change and without making any provision for such a change.
8
Governor, still some things are being deferred, construction,
land acquisition, etcetera, etcetera. Are we not -- is it not
inevitable that somewhere in the -- along the line within the next
12 months there's got to be a tax increase?
A
No, what you are -- no, it is not inevitable at all. You
must recognize that you've got to have some expectation that the
economy is not going to continue to go down, that there will be a
turning point and we will see a balance in the economy and our revenues
will once again be up. So we are just looking forward as anyone is
in a time of a period of hard times, looking also for an improvement
in the inflation situation.
a
Governor, what chance is there now that there will be any
new money for education before the fall?
A
Well, once again on this education thing, let me try to
state it again, as I have said it before. We believe that first
of all we recognize that there are school districts in this state
with a problem. We also believe that a possible cure of that problem
or answer to that problem is to be found within the present monies
now budgeted for schools, but which are inequitably being distributed.
So we are proceeding with the study that I have told you about,
getting our information together on whether we can rectify this
situation with that. Now, I grant you that the -- the second possi-
bility of making money available from the already existing budget has
been somewhat dampened by this -- this latest problem that we have
had of this -- of this imbalance in the budget. But there still
remains legislation which coule make additional monies available.
Our
welfare package is still before the legislature in the neighborhood
of a hundred million dollars that can be made available. Other
things of that kind. The last alternative, and one which I said I
-3-
would not turn from if it was the only alterna ve for school financ-
ing, would be a tax to raise that money if all of these other things
failed, but that's three steps removed from where we are now in solving
the school problem.
D
How soon do you expect your study to be completed. The
Districts are having to budget for next year and pretty soon it is
not going to matter to them.
A
I know I know, and we are working just as fast as we can,
but I couldn't give you a day right now.
D
Governor, Assemblyman Crown said on the floor a few minutes
ago that the administration had been caught in concealing facts from
this house, the administration has not acted in good faith. Would
you care to comment on that allegation?
A
Well, Mr. Crown is une who makes accusations easily. He
is far more adept at preferring charges than he is in listing accom-
plishments. And he knows that this is the political season and I
think that's what he's talking I think he knows very well that
we were not concealing anything and he knows that we have operated
in good faith. As a matter of fact, I think all of you know that
this administration has one trademark, if no other, and that is we
have been the first to tell the people the total facts about the
people's business. We believe in that and we are going to continue
to do it, but you just let -- have to let him have his remarks for
whatever political purpose he thinks they willserve.
Q
Governor, do you have any comment on the fact Mr. Lanterman
failed to get the budget returned to committee this morning in the
Assembly? The Democrats were successful in getting itkept on the
floor.
A
The only comment I just heard that it was a completely
partisan vote. So I suppose again some political games are being
played with that as were played last year. I hope they will not
resort to the same irresponsible conduct that they resorted to last
year and put the state in the desperate position that it was in by
attempting to go beyond the end of the fiscal year without a budget.
8
Governor, the Senate Finance Committee rather than following
the recommendations of the administration moved a budget out on the
floor today by just simply whacking off a hunk across the board, 1.4
per cent. Do you find that approach acceptable as far as the
-4-
administration is concerned?
A
Well, I don't know and I don't know what purposes were --
I remember when I started to whack a budget across the board by
10 per cent and there was a great deal of editorial comment to the
contrary. I don't know just what was intended there. But I'm
sure in the legislative process that they will get around to an
answer on that. I -- I'm not sure that they are prepared to make
all the statutory changes they'd have to make to make such a thing
stick.
8
Governor, Mr. Orr made a point last night of telling us
that there were federal advisors telling welfare recipients how they
could gest benefit from the state's welfare laws. Could you explain
to us what the difference is between that and tax consultants
advising big business or anybody else how they can contribute least
to government?
A
Well, yes, I think there is -- I think there is a difference.
And of course the real evil stems from regulations and laws that have
been piled one on top of the other in the welfare program to where
I'm sure that a great many people are astonished to discover how
widespread are the legal loopholes and that they are -- the legal
loopholes are providing things that were never intended by Congress,
in the passage of the programs, to begin with. I'm quite sure
that Congress never intended that people could earn up to $14,000 a
year and still be eligible for welfare grants, and the -- the result
is that some of these people who are advising are actually taking
people who are getting along and who have not called upon the govern-
ment and providing for themselves, and are literally talking them
into quitting providing for themselves and putting themselves over
within welfare. And again, as I say, this was never the intent of
the welfare program. But the real evil lies in correcting those
legal loopholes, in plugging these gaps that find -- as the hypo-
thetical case that I quoted sometime ago, where it is actually
possible for a family to make as much as $21,000 a year tax free,
all legal, from welfare programs. I don't think anyone ever intended
a program to do that.
Q
But isn't that a mere argument, sort of, of the -- of the
other -- the other problem which is people using the laws to avoid
paying taxes?
A
No,
no,
Q
You think ou are placing as much emr asis on that?
A
How are you avoiding a tax if you are not legally bound to
pay that tax?
Q
Well, the law is here or welfare programs are in the law.
A
Well, I think I just cited something that's quite different
about it. This is that these loopholes that were created with one
idea in mind, to help needy people, suddenly the loopholes appear and
you find that it goes way beyond this to where need is no longer a
consideration to be eligible for welfare. Now we do know that in
the tax laws there are also loopholes that went beyond what Congress
intended. But I think you will find, and for an obvious reason, that
government's done a lot better job of plugging those loopholes in
taxes when they show up than they have in the outgo of money when
those loopholes show up because the welfare loopholes have been
around for quite sometime.
Q
Governor, would you elaborate on this hundreds of full-time
public employees with salaries of $14,000 a year to receive welfare
payments?
A
This has all been carried inyour own papers, Herb. As
a matter of fact, the Oakland Tribune, I think, was the first that
brought this to the attention of a County and that County welfare
director, if you will remember, had to go to court to get his own
employees to give him the, the director of welfare, the information
on county employees who were receiving welfare. And now a number
of other counties have suddenly discovered these loopholes, particu-
larly in the Aid for Dependent Children program, and have now reported
that hundreds of full-time employees, many of them government
employees, and particularly employees of the welfare department
itself, where they were the first to discover the loopholes, are
doing this.
Q
Governor, you alluded a little while ago to the fact that
you hope that the economy would have an upturn, get out of the
recession. If we do not get out of the recession, however, before
November, what is going to be the fate of the Republican candidates?
A
Well, that just depends on the common sense of the people
as to whether they want to fix the blame on those who in the last
two or three years have been trying to bring the country out of the
pit that it was put in by those who had been in there for about thirty
-6-
years.
8
Governor, you were speaking of the welfare situation and
sometimes being able to earn $14,000 a year and still remain on welfare.
But under the Social Security Act and under the work allowance
program doesn't it in fact save cities and state money?
A
Well, now, no, I don't -- what program would -- well, you
are talking Social Security.
Q
The cases that have been cited recently for example, the
$14,000 case which was one, is a work allowance program, where people
are actually below the minimum standards set by the State of California
but which the State of California will not match in welfare payments.
So consequently a person or a family goes to work and they will
receive say perhaps only $30 in welfare which brings them up to
the minimal standard which has been stated by the -- by the State
of California, where they should be for a living standard. For
example, $14,000 could be for a family of ten.
A
Well, and they have also found that in a great many circum-
stances it isn't, that the loopholes that they discovered, and that
have been printed in their own papers are cases in which allowances
are made for car payments, allowances are made for gasoline to get
to work, until they pull the total income through exemptions down to
a point that brings it below the standard. And yet a great many
people are working for even less income than that and no one is
paying their car payments or paying their gas and oil to get to work
or clothing allowances and so forth. And these loopholes, as I
say, I think are things that were never intended when the -- when the
program was first
or liberalized.
Q
Are you --
Q
You still didn't answer my basic question under the work
allowance program® doesn't it really save the state money; if this
program were pushed through totally, wouldn't it actually save the
entire welfare program for the state?
A
No, I don't think it would. I don't see how it would.
Q
I believe that's the way that it is set up, it is set up
to save money.
A
What program are we talking about?
ED MEESE:
He's talking about the so-called welfare
reform program --
A
You mean the Federal welfare reform program now that is
-7-
before the Congress?
Q
I mean the money you are speaking of, the cases that were
cited in Alameda County.
A
And a number of other counties.
Q
Yes, and a number of other counties, actually it represented
a saving to the county, it wasn't more money than that was put out
through Alameda County, it was less money than we were putting out
last year, but the only question was that there was no ceiling on the
amount of money that people could earn to receive welfare.
A
Well, I don't see where it saved the county any money, and
I don't see how it saves -- we have never hesitated if we can find a
saving we can make in federal money, and reduce the federal government's
grants we get, we never hesitated to do that because it is all our
money and it is coming out of the same taxpayers' pockets, so --
Q
But it is a lesser amount of money that you arepaying out
for welfare.
A
Well, I don't see --
Q
On a particular program.
A
I don't see where it is. I don't see how it is a lesser
amount of money that's going out for welfare when somebody is getting
$300 a month -- is earning $14,000 and getting $300 from the govern-
ment.
Q
Governor, did you ever get a response from President Nixon
to your letter to him about the welfare plan?
A
Well, now--
8
Your opposition to the bill in the form it was in the
Senate?
A
Not directly from him, in person. I've had conversations
with him since on other matters, but our people have continued to
work with the people in HEW on this and there certainly was no --
no animosity or no feeling that we had attacked the administration or
taken another or collision. course with them.
Q
Governor, do you have any regrets now over the $81 million
dollars lost through the one-time cut in the income taxes which could
have been used to avoid this deficit?
A
Not at all, and I'll tell you why. The $81 million dollars,
if it hadn't been given back to the people wouldn't be here to help
with this deficit now. This is what I meant earlier when I said that
every time there was an extra dollar upstairs there were enough
-8-
prospecgive programs of interest to individuals and special interest
groups, but by this time that money would already have been sarmarked
for one of those programs and the cost of government, the size of
government would have been built up by that amount. And we would
now be in the position of having to find $81 million dollars on an
ongoing basis to pay for that. And this has been true of almost
every surplus that we have given back to the people. Actually, you
could say the same thing about one billion 480 million dollars which
we have returned to the people of this state in direct tax relief
since 1967.
Q
Governor, couldn't you have held onto that $81 million
dollars by blue-penciling out of the budget anything that they put
in?
A
Well, you can blue-pencil out the budget, but it is also
very difficult when legislative programs are introduced and remember
that this $81 million dollars was known about quite sometime ago,
long enough for programs tohave been augmented or legislation passed
and instituting new programs or augmenting existing programs, and
we have followed the tact that when we can we are going to give it
back. It was a one-time windfall, remember.
8
All right, but in view of the national efforts that were
really made to cool off the economy, surcharge, and that sort of
thing, and couldn't you have made it known that this money might be
needed this year to forestall something like this $85 million dollar
imbalance you've got now.
A
Yes, but now will you remember that big $537 million surplus
a few months ago that we had, and will you remember that the fellows
upstairs, some of them on the other side of the aisle were telling us
that if you added them up they probably had about a billion and a
half in suggestions for the use of that, and we kept saying there is
no $537million surplus, it is already spent or earmarked for future
use, and nobody listened -- and very frankly, I just have to tell you
your headlines didn't actually quote me either as saying that and I
still get letters every once in a while from people wanting to know what
we are going to do with that $537 million surplus, that one individual
in particular kept talking about upstairs.
8
Do you think the runaway welfare costs are caused primarily
by abuses and loopholes or are they caused by the fact that people
-9-
who are legitimate eligible for these benef_ 3 are now applying
for them?
A
I have to tell you that I honestly believe more through
loopholes and the kind of -- the kind of legalized cheating, if you
could put those words together, in that no one's breaking the law.
It is the law itself which is unfair to the people who are putting
up the money. I think that this is the -- this is the biggest
factor , not just that people have been going hungry and then dis-
covered this. There is -- you'll find some county welfare directors
will tell you that there is a kind of proselyting, a natural solicita-
tion that's going on. I'm talking about the person that with a
certain amount of self-respect has kept himself or herself, has
managed perhaps without regular employment to make a living and has
gone on down through the years making it and then suddenly is approached
by a welfare worker and told if they will quit putting out that effort
they are legally eligible to receive this aid, and in many intances
the aid is more than they are already making. So they -- they
quit their pattern of life and become a welfare ward.
Q
Another topic?
A
All right.
Q
Governor, one more question.
A
Well, wait a minute, one more.
Q
On this surplus or this windfall that went back to the
taxpayers this year, earlier this year. Aren't you saying that the
State will have to be in some sort of permanent financial crisis if
we can't keep any money ahead or build up a surplus? Isn't that what
this sort of condemns the state to?
A
No, we can still hope that one of these days some of that
money we are saying every year, like the tens of millions of dollars
this year that helped us in this particular crisis, that one of these
days we will be able to use it properly. Remember, there is a
regular cushion that is there in the accrual bookkeeping setup that's
that magic $194 million which no one ever seems to be able to show
in cash but it is just ink in the bookkeeping. And that was part
of that $537 million dollar surplus. When you take the $194 million
dollar, well by now, as your economy grows your budget grows and
revenue grows, that $194 million dollars is now about $236 million
-10-
dollars, and that is there as the cushion that bridges at the end of
the year over to the next one. Now, this cannot be allowed to fall
below its figure and each year it will grow a little bit to give you
your balance. This is the working cash balance. The surplus
figure that we are talking about of the $28 million dollars and so
forth is that figure that you have in case your estimates prove wrong,
your revenues arent up to scratch or something costs more than you
thought it was going to cost. Well, here's an instance where the
$28 million dollars is going to be used for that purpose.
Q
Governor,
A
Now, wait a minute, Ray --
8
Budget?
8
No.
Q
Should the legislature adopt the Senate's across the
board cut, it means your operating
would you take a salary cut
of 1.4 per cent?
A
Sure, I think that's even in the bill, no problem.
Q
Governor, has your office received any official complaints
from Los Angeles County on the voting irregularities and what is
your response to some of the charges which have come from that county?
A
Well, now, I don't know that -- I don't know we have received
any.
ED MEESE: We have received some letters, but no official
complaint as such.
A
Some letters, but actually we have been in touch with the
Secretary of State on this and as you know we have someone that's
involved right now in the investigation of this and we are as anxious
as anyone else to get this straightened out.
Q
You support the Assembly's plans to investigate not only
the irregularities in Los Angeles County byt the other counties?
A
Oh, I think sure, you've got to do It statewide. The
people of the state have got to be assured there can be no shenanigans
where their votes are concerned, that everybody's vote's got to be
counted and count.
Q
Governor, I didn't understand your answer before on the --
on the surplus. Why is it that you couldn't have kept the surplus
that was returned to the people and held it for an emergency purpose?
A
I think you just have to understand the pressures that come
-11-
and come on the 1 islature, when there is ar rently, as you well
know there are any number of projects and programs and increases in
existing programs that there are people in the state who believe
that these are worthwhile and should go forward for the good of the
state. And many of these are legitimate. No quarrel with that.
I'm not saying that these are all just Mickey Mouse spending schemes.
And when there is apparently money available it is just like it is
in our pockets, I guess, in our family budgets, it is virtually
impossible to resist the pressure to go forward with this and you can
explain the need for a saving for a raindy day all you want, but to
the people that problem is their rainy day and they want it solved
right then.
Q
So the state's better off if it does have that extra
money?
A
I think justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said it, "Keep
government poor and remain free."
D
Governor, you've talked about the rising cost of welfare and
Medi-Cal for -- for three years and there are many Democrats as well
as Republicans in the legislature who have expressed concern about
the rising cost and the abuses of these programs. Can you tell the
people of California that your administration has exercised all the
leadership it could and has done everything it can to reform these
programs, and --
A
Yes.
8
And if you can, who is to blame that nothing has been done?
A
Well, we can't say that nothing has been done. I would
like to point out to you that when this administration started Medi-
Cal was in its first year. It had been, I think, rather hastily
passed, it was shoved together on a gigantic scale that topped almost
anything ever any other state attempted. Medi-Cal had been
originally or Medicaid as it's called at the National level, had
been handed to the states with the idea that they had over a several
year period phase-by-phase they could bring this program about.
California did it all at once, and in that first year there was no
one that had any idea of the projections, add we discovered very early
that all predictions as to cost, size of the program, were vast
underestimates. If you will remember, the first, in the spring of
1967 we discovered the money in the pipeline. The bills that had
not even been submitted to us were hundreds of millions of dollars
-12-
more than anyone had anticipated and this became our first battle
in this room, the battle of the figures, in which we started trying
to warn the people of what was going on. You will remember, we were
prevented by court order in something we wanted to do that would have
made it easily possible for us to get a handle on this. And a
court overruled us, said we couldn't do what we wanted to do. Now,
each year these things have gone on mar and more we have learned
we have been -- we have conducted experiments and have some going
right now with counties in certain areas as to the means of controlling
it, by way of providers of the services in Medi-Cal. In the admini-
stration of welfare we made tremendous cuts. Some of our biggest
economies were in the actual administrative costs, but those are
just in the cost of -- at our end of administering it, not in the
grants.
Q
Governor, there is another question over here, we are
trying to get out of here, way over here.
A
All right, but now we are going farther than we ever had,
but we have been -- we have been reversed in several court decisions
on things we have tried to do. We have instituted some reforms
that we think would be of help, and some of our programs that we
set out to cure things with just got out there and bogged down in
the bureaucracy of the -- on the firing line.
8
Governor, the Medi-Cal program was a great part done by
Republicans, especially now the under-Secretary of Health, Education
and Welfare. Do you feel he was misinformed or wasn't quite prepared
for all of this?
A
Well, I'd have to tell you one thing that happened to
whoever was Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in Washington
is
8
I mean John Veneman who is now Secretary, was a great part
an author of that Medi-Cal bill.
A
Well, I think that that bureaucracy, when you get back there
you'll find is a pretty informative opponent and it has its own
philosophy as to how things are going to run.
Q
I'm referring to the one you were just talking about,
Governor, the California Medi-Cal bill when John Veneman was in the
Assembly, he drafted a great deal of that bill.
A
Well --
-13-
Q
You crit ized quite a bit of that, 'm curious --
A
I wasn't here when that bill was drafted, and I don't know
what share hehad in it, but I can only tell you that it's been a
tremendously cumbersome thing in which you simply by trial and error
had to find out what all it was doing to you and as I have given
you just one figure here today, one instance, isthat Medi-Cal is
being used by the people to whom it is available. Their medical
care and medical attention averages double the cost -- more than
double the cost of the medical care that the rest of us afford for
ourselves.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
o0o
-14-
6/16
9
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD JUNE 16, 1970
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corpssfor 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 gauranty of absolutely accuracy.)
Q
Governor, there is a report that in meeting with the
group of sympathetic faculty members of the University of California
some of the advance the ideas of having political dossiers on new
faculty appointments, and that you vetoed such an idea. Would you
comment on that report and give us your reasons for --
A
Well, I don't -- I don't recall anything of the kind.
I remember in statements of my own, lest there be any misunderstand-
ing, I made it plain that contrary to charges, not there, but that
have been made in the past that I was advocating a political saliva
test for faculty members, that my claims have been that there are now
evidences of such political tests and that all I was seeking was the
abolition of this.
Q
What evidence do you have, Governor, that such tests
exist now?
A
Well, from the -- this would come from some of the indiv-
iduals who have written me from campuses claiming discrimination,
and I would think the-- actual balance of the faculty itself, as
you look at it, and it does seem to have a kind of one-way political
philosophy, claims by students in a number of classes on a variety
of campuses they have had to answer questions and write papers from
a certain political viewpoint or face discrimination in their grades.
Q
You said you had gotten letters. Have you looked into
it beyond that, sent people to the campuses to ask about it or inves-
tigate --
A
Yes, we have looked into it. The difficulty is in relay-
ing these cases to the university authorities I have to do it and
respect the privacy of the individuals who have contacted me
because they have feared that this discrimination would follow if
-1-
they were known to have complained.
Q
Governor, the President has appointed a commission to look
into
campus unrest. You've been pretty close to this problem. Do
you think we need yet another citizen's study of this?
A
Well, since the extensive hearings that we held by the
McClellan Committee didn't seem to get much attention I would suggest
that such a commission could serve a useful purpose and perhaps they
could start by a study and a review of all the testimony that's been
givan before that committee. I would hope that this commission
of the President would devote some of its attention to finding out --
establishing whether there are indeed connections between the dissi-
dents on the various campuses, why some of the leaders of these
who
campus revolts/have no visible means of support are able to travel
from Hanoi to Budapest, Havana, and I think there are things to be --
to be determined. I hope it won't be just another one of those
broad general commissions that comes up with a kind of a philosophical
approach like the crime and violence commission under the previous
administration.
D
Governor, what is your feeling about the Lieutenant Gover-
nor's call for the voluntary news blackout by the press, television
on campus riots during states of emergency? Campus violence.
A
Well, it is my understanding that the Lieutenant Governor
in his speech touched on seven -- seven facets running from the
public, the students, the faculty, the administration, the Regents
and Trustees and the press, as well as government. All seven of
these, and made points on steps that perhaps each one could tale in
an effort -- taking the steps to be of help in bringing this to a
halt. He certainly made no suggestion whatsoever ofeany kind of
government censorship. He was speaking of voluntary policing on the
part of the media, and I would suggest that perhaps the media could
find some areas in which it could be concerned with its own
responsibility. We know instances in which the dissidents have
scheduled their disturbances or changed the schedule of them to fit
press coverage and if television camera crews from the networks
weren't available at a certain time, they'd schedule their uprising
at another time and I would think that the press would be -- I'm
sure it must be concerned with whether it is being used in any way
by the dissidents.
-2-
Q
Isn't that not too much different, Governor, from politicians
arranging their commission reports, various other things, in conjunc-
tion with what's good news coverage?
A
No, I think there is a great deal of difference in having
a report about the people's business of interest to the people and
choosing the time based on deadlines and so forth, not only for your
convenience but when you think it will reach the greatest number of
people. That's a little differentethan scheduling a lawbreaking
disturbance only at such a time that you can be guaranteed of adequate
coverage.
8
Two points I'd like a little clarification on. In passing
on the complaints to the U.C. about faculty members who request points
of view there, did you pass on complaints about individuals or were
you able to do that or -- Professor Ray in the political science
department, for example.
A
No, it had to be within the framework, as I say, of pro-
tecting the individuals who frankly did not feel that they would have
support and backing if they were known to be complaining.
8
Governor, the Democratic caucus in the Senate yesterday
said --
SQUIRE: Wait a minute, are you all done on this other
subject?
8
One more question, Governor, if I may, on the news blackout
thing.
I'm not quite clear, do you think that the news media should
voluntarily refuse to cover student uprisings?
A
Well, I think the suggestion that was made had to do with --
with the news coverage reviewing and seeing if it had a responsibility
in this field. Now, I know of one T.V. news coverage that reports
the incidents are happening, reports the news, but holds the film
off the air and doesn't give them that kind of film coverage of
the actual activity.
Q
Would you prefer that type of coverage?
A
Look, you are asking me about some one else's comments on
this. I'm just telling you that I could see some reasons back of
it and calling to your attention that no one in government here is
advocating censorship of the press.
Q
Same subject. Governor, Sol Lenowitz submitted a report
fo the President several -- well, just about a month ago in campus
-3-
unrest and in it he cited politicians making harsh comments as
responsible for some of the alienation and cited you were one of the
two examples, Spiro Agnew is another. Do you feel that commission
report was accurate?
A
No, I don't.
Q
And why?
A
And you think that I feel that I'm responsible or anyone
in government is responsible for what's been taking place on the
campuses, absolutely not. And I think if that's the kind of commis-
sion reports that we are supposed to expect, then there is going to
be no light shed by a commission report on what's taking place on
the campus.
0
Can we go on another subject, Governor?
A
Right over here.
SQUIRE: Wait a minute.
Q
On the budget, Democratic caucus said yesterday that there
would have to be more money for schools and welfare before they
would approve the budget in the Senate.
A
Well, this sounds a little bit like last year in holding
the budget for ransom again, and I hope that the legislative process
will go forward in a more responsible manner, and that we were
only hearing froma few individuals as to their own views. I have
made it perfectly plain to the legislature and the legislative
leadership of both sides, that I am committed to meeting them with
regard to the school problem, but when June 30 comes the Constitution
calls for the legislature to submit back to theGovernor a balanced
budget, and they are derelict in their duty and violation of
their oath and the Constitution if they do not do so, and I hope
we will never have that experience again.
Q
Governor, on that score, though, is the legislature
under obligation to submit a balanced budget or are you the one that
has the obligation?
A
Well, we have submitted a manner in which the budget can
be balanced. Now, if the legislature disagrees with our views
and wants to find other ways in which to balance it they can do this
and submit them back. As we know, I can't put back something they
have taken out. I can only pare down something that they have put
in. If they smbmit back to me a budget that is over and above
the means to finance it, then it is my responsibility to blue pencil
it as I see fit. The best process, of course, is if I have the
benefit of their thinking and their views as to what priorities are
in that, bringing back the budget within the -- within our means.
Q
Don't you recognize that what they want to do is put the
monkey on your back and let you take the blame for cutting out things
that are unpopular?
A
Yes, I recognized that for about three years and I wonder
how long some of them were going to keep on being stupid politically
because if they think that it hurts me to blue pencil expensive
items out of the budget, I think most Californians would be very
happy to chip in and buy me a supply of blue pencils.
8
Governor, I think Ican relate my question to the budget
sort of indirectly.
(Laughter)
Q
Yesterday the Riverside County Supervisors passed a
resolution expressing their intent to cut the County welfare personnel
by 75 per cent in the new fiscal year to achieve economy and in
explaining their action they -- one of the Supervisors referred to
you and said Governor Reagan is willing to institute a suit on welfare
directors against the federal government. "Now Riverside County can
give him a chance to test it," and the Supervisors suggested the
resolution and this problem will depend on your action, adding that
if he supports your action in order for state welfare agencies not
to enforce state welfare standards, but continue their aid, they will
be able to test your support. Now, what is your reaction? Do you
give them any support or not?
A
Well, my reaction to this, this is one of the areas for
reform in welfare that is forced on us by federal regulations which
dictates the number of welfare workers you must have, depending on the
number of welfare recipients. And again it is the kind of dictation
from 3,000 miles away that doesn't allow the proper flexibility. It
isjust not true that "x" number of cases means "x" amount of hours of
work for a case worker. One case worker can have a half a dozen
cases that causehim more concern, more time and more effort than
another case worker with several times the number. Some of the
other changes we'd like to see made, I'm completely sympathetic to
the Supervisors on. what's bothering them -- Los Angeles County, as
I understand it, is going to have to take on some 3,000 new employees
-5-
just brought about by these federal regulations. And while we are
at it, I would like to see the welfare worker relieved of about 80
per cent of his work at present, which is paper work, reports to
higher echelons of government, instead of spending his time with the
people who need his attention.
Q
Governor, just one follow up question, specifically on their
action, if they pursue this would the State itself go to Court to
force them to obey the standards or --
A
Well, they are kind of forcing our: hand on something that
we would rather try to get by way of asking the federal government
for waivers, as I have said before, to allow us to prove some points
or try to prove some points. And I would much prefer to go to
Washington with a good workable program and ask -- ask the government
to waive the regulations temporarily on an experimental basis.
a
And you don't specifically support what they are doing?
In Riverside County.
A
Well, if they are just going to violate a regulation and
sit back and wait for the roof to fall in, they'd better wear hard
hats.
8
Governor, would it be difficult for Riverside to do that
if your welfare bill as has been carried by Senator Richardson
passes because wouldn't it. require -- wouldn't it mean a lot of people
no longer would be eligible for state help, but would be eligible
for county help and county rolls would increase tremendously?
A
Well, this is one of the things that I think would be hanging
over them. I haven't -- this is the first I've heard about this
this morning. You fellows are supposed to come in and learn things
and I learn things from you, but so I don't know how these two fit
together, but it is true that if -- if county makes itself ineligible
for some part of the regular welfare program, then they either have
to absorb those people on county welfare at their own expense or
simply abandon them.
Q
Governor, on the matter of the expense, yesterday
Supervisor Bud Gonzalez in San Francisco said that your proposed
welfare cut for the state is a fraud upon the people, and what it is
actually going to do is force a cut on the general assistance program.
This if for those that just cannot work, the aged or the blind or
any case like that, what's your comment on that, Governor?
-6-
A
Well, I don't know what he was referring to. I haven't
seen a statement, maybe he was referring to some of the changes we
want to make in the liberalizing sometime ago, several years ago, of
the standards for disability and there is reason to believe and our
own people working with this say that we have liberalized them so far
that there are people who are not truly disabled but who technically
qualify. I don't know whether I was a victim of a joke or not
myself, but when I was being fitted for -- checked for glasses
again in a recent physical. examination my doctor told me that I
was legally qualified under the state law as blind. And --
Q
Well, Governor -- excuse me.
A
I haven't saught relief yet for that.
Q
This same Supervisor claims that about 15 million dollars
a year if your program went through on account of cutting off the
disabled and blind.
A
That what?
8
Cutting off aged, disabled and blind, said it would cost
$15 million a year.
A
I don't -- I don't understand how he arrives at those
figures, Squire. I think that -- unless he is assuming that they
locally would keep the same standards. We are simply trying to re-
view the standards and change back to something we think is more
realistic.
D
Governor, there is a full-page ad in the San Francisco
Chronicle this morning saying that when we voted for Proposition 7
Californians in effect were voting for the California Water Plan,
and this committee says that was illegal and plans to sue California.
Do you have any response to this reaction -- to this plan?
A
Yes, every once in a while things must be quiet in the
dressmaking business and this gentleman takes to advertising social
causes. I don't think there was anything illegal. The people
were told over and over again that the water bonds as well as a number
of other bond issues were at stake in Proposition 7. I've read
the gentleman's ad. I just told our staff a little while ago, if
he leaves as many holes in his dresses as he does in his arguments,
his customers have got some consumer complaints.
Q
Governor, in view of the problems with the budget deficit
and the need -- the obvious need for education money, Speaker Monagan
last week suggested that perhaps one answer would be to delay the
-7-
relief part of your tax reform package. What reaction do you have
to that and if there is no other alternative would you accept that?
A
No. I think -- we have discussed this in our discussions
with the Speaker and with our own legislative leadership on the
school fi hancing program. No, this would then simply be a tax
increase without the comparable relief for the property taxpayer and
that's the whole purpose of tax relief, it is the need that everyone
on both sides of the aisle have explained and have cried for for
several. years. I believe that as I have said before, that there
are several steps in that, and the several steps call for first, a
review of the manner in which we are now financing the schools.
The establishment of what is the need, the actual dollar need, and
then if this cannot be found within our revenues, three steps down
the line then I think you are going to have to find a source of
revenue and go before the people and -- and ask for this source of
revenue for support of education.
Q
The education people seem to feel, though, that the situa-
tion is so critical that as many as a hundred school districts will
be bankrupt in September. Can you solve it before then?
A
Well, we are certainly hoping to. Now, we may not be
able in the limited period that is left, -- we may not be able to
come to the complete permanent solution by way of the changing of
the formula for doling out state money on . all the things that we
think
are
necessary.
If not, then we think we are going to
have to take a temporary stop-gap measure, but I think this can be
done without delaying the property tax relief for the people that
need it so badly.
Q
Governor, you say you'll go to the people if it becomes
necessary. Areyou indicating that any school tax would have to
be voted on by the people?
A
Oh, no, no. I mean that in my estimation, I won't use
the term "figure of speech", I've always considered that when you
tackle a problem this way in the legislature and the solution, the
people are aware of it, they have a chance to make their own views
known and they are informed and know that they have an opportunity
to express their opinion to their legislators as to whether you
have chosen the right method of raising money and whether they
believe it is necessary, and so forth, and you go forward with some
-8-
idea that you are -- that you are meeting the people's views half
way.
D
What thought have you given to delaying the forgiveness
aspect of your tax package?
A
No, we haven't given consideration to that. I'm very
fearful any time that you start toying around with a whe-time windfall
or something that's an on-going government expense. Well, an example
of that is right now in school. financing. Last year in the giving
of the surplus we were able to accumulate through our own economies
and savings, giving that to schools over and over again we reminded
them it was a one-time windfall and yet we see now this year as
there is no comparable amount to be given there is a great cry of
panic. And yet they were told that this was one-time money they
were getting.
0
Governor, that -- maybe there is principle involved there,
but nevertheless by doing so you are inflicting on tomorrow's tax-
payers the requirement to pay today's inflated interest rates.
What's the logic of that?
A
Well, I think the logic is the tradition of financing the
capital construction, if that's what you are talking about -- financ-
ing it over a long period of time and not asking just one generation
of taxpayers at one particular period to pay for things that will
be on-going for 40, 50 or 100 years.
D
Governor, you've said that you can't discuss with the
Democrats the need for education -- new education money until your
committees have assessed that need and they -- based on your determin-
ation about it. Since the Democrats are tying their support of the
budget to education finance, are you making an effort to complete
these studies before the budget has to be balanced?
A
Oh, yes, as a matter of fact we are getting information
on this and expect to have information almost immediately. We have
been for' sometime trying to get this or going forward to get this
information.
Q
But --
A
It isn't -- as you know, it is pretty complicated, it isn't
very easy in the school formula problem, for example, to get any
changes in that. The very people who are screaming the loudest for
help are the ones who don't want to change the status quo, but want
-9-
any help that's given to be given on top of that and I think that the
status quo at the moment, the school apportionment is part of it,
is part;ly to blame.
Q
But when we have asked you about the need for new education
money you said that you can't assess that until the studies that you
have under way are complete.
Now, when are they going to be com-
plete? Will it be in time for the budget?
A
Yes, very soon. We are -- as I say, we have been at this
for sometime now. This isn't something we are delaying until next
fall.
What?
0
Will You make specific proposals about education finance as a
result of the studies?
A
We will make proposals based on the information we get,
yes.
Q
Can you tell us on a preliminary basis if you think new
money is going to be needed?
A
No, you are -- you are ahead of me by a meeting or two.
Not a meeting or two here, a meeting or two in my office.
Q
What have you learned so far?
(Laughter)
A
Not to answer your question.
(Laughter)
A
I can't do it, but we have talked to the legislative leader-
ship, as I said, and there is no question about our commitment to
this and there is absolutely no reason to hold up a budget on some
kind of a blackmail basis as if they have to do this to win some
support from us. This is just -- I'll go back three years and use
the term again, this is political fun and games, and they ought to
be ashamed of themselves.
8
Governor, if you told the schools last year that that was
a one-time windfall, it was well aware it was needed at that time,
why has it taken so long for your department and your study commis-
sions to come up with the answer right down again to another deadline
like it was last year?
A
Well, as I have told you before, the problem of apportion-
ment, and I don't think there are -- I make no claim to being able
to understand that formula, but again I'll use the example I've used
before, that in times of need when school districts are in need of
-10-
more money we have actually seen under the formula the Department
of Education have to give money back to us, to the General Fund,
because under the technicalities they could not apportion or give
that money out. Now, where it was needed, and this hidebound
formula, this dictation by the state to local school districts as
to how the money must be spent is something that I think we have to
face and change. And you will find there is a great political
resistance to this, aprticularly among the most vociferous of the
education lobby.
Q
Well, again, why has it taken so long, you've been going
through this every year for three years.
A
Well, because if you believed every school, every school
district needs money, and a great many people in the districts at
the local level have shown by their votes on tax overrides and so
forth that they don't necessarily believe this. And it is their
own children who are going to those schools. Now, I think there
is some responsibility on the part of us to find out where this
money can be used and is necessary to use it.
Q
That was one of your campaigns in 166, and still there is
no new plan or apportionment.
A
No, my campaign was that the state was I believed that
the state was -- I believed that the stateshould try for the 50-50
sharing, and we have started back uphill, after I might add again,
eight years steadily decline in state support of public school
education which was halted three and a half years ago and we have
started back up. Now, can't do better than that.
Q
Governor, the state sold $200 million dollars worth of water
bonds this morning for 5.83 per cent. What is your reaction to that
level?
ED MEESE: Those are anticipation notes, not bonds.
A
Anticipation notes, not bonds, and you see, that's on a
short term, that is a one year basis and these are more attractive
than bonds. You could not sell bonds at that same rate. This is
why we are -- we are going to the market with anticipation notes,
hoping for a better climate soon. But you see, even there we coulnd't
have sold those without possible -- Proposition 7, because if you
will recall we went out and at one time we asked for an opinion,
could we sell bond anticipation notes for higher than the constitutional
limit on interest and were told we couldn't. And now we have sold
these, but if we tried to market those bonds I think the interest
rate would have been higher.
if
Q
Governor, your reports on school finance should show that
the schools do need additionalmoney, do you have any idea yet what
areas of taxation you might go go to find that money?
A
No, because first this is going to depend on whether we can
find additional money. Remember, there is still legislation upstairs
that would make more monies available if this legislation was passed,
and we don't -- we want to know whether it is going to be passed,
how much money is going to be made available and then see what our
needs are over and above that, if any.
Q
In the past you said that you believe that the schools
should be financed or as much as possible by sales and income taxes
to change with the economy.
Would you like to go along -- would
you like to go in that direction again, if it shoul d be necessary?
A
I'll just have to look when I see what -- what the need
is.
It would be silly to go for some broad based tax that
would -- your need would only have to be a fraction of a penny increase
when perhaps there is some other lesser tax that could simple take
a reasonable and practical increase and make it up.
Q
Governor, have you considered reducing the proposed rebate
to property taxpayers to cover the school cost?
A
Well, then, you are going against the very purpose of tax
reform. I happen to be one who believes, and I think a great many
people do, that the biggest evil in our society today, as far as
taxation is concerned, is the clinging to this antiquated method of
taxation, the property tax. Particularly on the home owner, and
therefore I -- my leaning is to anything that gets us away from
property tax and reduces property tax down to those practical things
of its base for bonding, local bonding and the services that go with
property, the protection of property and so forth and servicing of
property. But to ask the property taxpayer to bear a share of educa-
tion or welfare costs, I think is just -- doesn't fit our economy.
Q
Governor, do you support Mr. Bagley's proposal to divert
some of the truck taxes to pay for faculty salary increases? (budget)
A
Well, we ourselves have discussed that particular -- that
truck tax now in existence which goes in with the gasoline tax. It
is not constitutionally bound, its just by custom that it has been
included over in the trust fund, the highway trust fund, and we have
discussed possibly the use of that tax in the General Fund, but we
haven't discussed the idea ofany particular use for it.
Q
Do you think that would be a good use for it?
A
I'd rather sit and think about that for a while.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
-12-
6/23
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD JUNE 23, 1970
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
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
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read a press release.)
I
Governor, up in the second paragraph you changed "must"
to "will". Now, what do you mean? Nevertheless -- the last
line there in the second paragraph.
PAUL BECK: Neverthèless more money will be provided
in the coming year.
8
That's what you said. Your script says "must."
In the second paragraph.
A
Oh, no, it is wirtten here "must." Did I say "will".
8
Yes.
PAUL BECK: You mean must.
A
Must, must be provided in the coming year, yes, that's
right.
Q
Must be.
0
G overnor, have you any idea howmuch this five per cent would
be in --
(school financing)
A
This would be something in excess of $70 million. NOW
the Senate's figure of $88 million was arrived at, which using the
full 6.1 per cent cost of living increase, and we know that five
per cent is short of last year's 6.1, but we -- as I say, consistency,
we suggested this as a guideline because we are going this with regard
to wage increases in other departments. Our feeling is that -- our
own feeling, although this is not mandatory, if the conference Committee
can find more money to go more, that's -- that's up to them. But
our feeling was that everybody has to share a little bit in the
burden of inflation. You can't put the whole burden on the tax-
payer or anyone else and say that government doesn't have to suffer a
little also.
Q
Is that five per cent applied just to basic aid or also to
equalization or the total allocation that schools get for all kinds
of special education?
A
Well, there are certain things that we are doing in the
total support for schools that this would not apply to, but this is
five per cent -- I think on the basic aid which brings it out to
something in excess of $70 million.
Q
Governor, where are you cutting the budget and what
priorities being reordered?
4
A
Well, now, this would be a little difficult because some
of them we found the Conference Committee is already dealing with.
Some of these things are further reductions in -- in administrative
overhead in certain areas that -- where it would -- it would be a
cut and it would hurt, but departments that believe that they could
in view of this make that.
D
Which departments?
A
Well, again, there's quite a variety because we are down
now to after balancing the budget once we are down now to taking a
few thousand here and there to arrive at these totals. Some of the
newer money that will require legislation involves the Senate bill
with regard to welfare which could produce $27 million. The on-a-
one-time use of the truck tax, $18 million, the one-time use of the
X factor $16 and a half million. Now, this which we have made
available for school construction can be released for this on a
one-time basis because we have sold the bonds now, since the passage
of 7, we can proceed with that. No one would be penalized by that.
This is a surplus of several million dollars in the driver education
program, these are some of the one-time funds that I mentioned.
The other was just a case of going through -- again, in the budget
and finding here and there, picking up a few thousand here and there
from quite a variety of departments.
8
Governor, the school districts' financial problems vary
quite a bit. Would there be no effort to try to find out where the
need is greatest and to channel the money that way?
A
Yes, this would not just go down the usual allocation
route, this would require a distribution that we believe would benefit
the schools with the greatest problems.
Q
Have you recommended how this distribution would take place?
A
Well, I know that our education people, yes, have a plan
for this.
-2-
8
Are you presenting that to the Joint Conference Committee,
that plan?
A
What?
8
Are you presenting your plan to the Joint Conference
Committee?
A
This is -- all of this has been turned over to the Joint
Conference Committee as guidelines and suggestions.
8
Why didn't you make this recommendation sooner?
A
We didn't make this recommendation sooner because it's
taken us all this time and several rather lengthy meetings to
find these monies and also because the task force that I have told
you about and which will be the basis cooperating with the Legislature
as we go forward in the reorganization plan throughout the months
ahead, and then take up in January in the new session -- their deci-
sions, they were the ones that made it evidence to us that there
just was no way at this moment to actually put a finger on the needs--
what they might amount to as to actual dollar amount or whether they
were --- the result, as I say, of mismanagement or shortage of funds.
So we decided on this two-step phase that we are faced with an
interim problem and we are faced with the long-range reorganization
problem and so we are going to proceed with that, but in the meantime
regardless of the cause of the shortage there are school districts
that have definite need, whether it is mismanagement or shortage of --
that we are not giving enough money and so we are going to provide
this money rather than penalize the children.
Q
Governor, when you talk about reducing administrative
overhead, are you talking about possible state employed layoffs here
or attrition or what?
A
No, no, just absorbing increased work loads without
increasing the department.
8
Governor --
8
Governor, that -- that $27 million saving in welfare program
is problematic In other words, the bill probably won't be passed
before the budget bill has to be through.
A
All of these were presented to the Conference Committee
and for their -- for the help to them -- their proving on their own
and probably have thought of some thing that will institute some
cuts that we haven't added. We just simply made all of our findings
on the basis of what we had already presented to them as additional
sources for finding this money.
D
Governor, do you feel this puts an end to what you call fun
and games on the part of Democrats who have been holding out not
voting for the budget because there was no school in it or increased
school aid?
A
I would think it would. I have said over and over again
that we are as determined as they are to find an answer to this
problem, and this, I would think, wouldmake it evident to them that
we meant it every time we said it.
8
Governor, the Senate version of the budget added $135
for schools. Would your $70 million then be on top of the $135
million?
A
Oh, no, no, and I don't know just exactly how they arrived
at it. I know that there -- their increase on a cost of living
basis which totalled some $88 million was based on the full six
per cent cost of living.
Now, I might say that in addition 606
of last year is fully funded in the budget. At that level, and this
money that we have proposed is on top of that. So I don't know what
additional things they might have put in there.
Q
Governor, you say this is offered only as a guideline.
Yet if the Conference Committee came out with the full amount pro-
posed by the Senate, $135 million, would that be outside of your
guideline, would you oppose that?
A
I don't think it is $135 million.
PAUL BECK: [.would like to make a point. Let's get the
question in the context because it is not $135 because I think the
net is $88, $95 -- 9--
VOICE: 98.
Q
Would you oppose it if that solution came out of the
Conference Committee?
A
Well, I would have to -- I have the final responsibility
then of looking at the budget and regarding -- and I would have to
look at the priorities of -- and how they arrived at this.
8
Governor, earlier you said you were talking about cutbacks
or trimming down in the administrative and you used the term "various
areas.
11
Were you referring to that procedurally or geographically?
A
Now --
Q
You said cutting down in administrative levels in various
areas.
A
Oh, no, no, I meant administratively.
Q
Administratively or geographically?
A
Not geographically, no.
Q
Can you elaborate a little biton the process that you went
through if you couldn't determine the degree -- with any degree of
certainty, as you say, the actual financial needs how then do you
determine that there is more money needed?
A
Well, we do know that there are school districts that are
self announced bankrupt cases and that have some problems actually
meeting their bills and some of these have been brought to the
attention of the legislature. We do know that the problems exist.
We also know with the task force work that has gone forward so far
that there are school districts that we cannot solve their problem
of why they are in this particular situation in these few days of
closing out the budget, but we do know that under the long range
plan they can be solved where there are great administrative flaws
and weaknesses that have led to this problem.
0
Why is it necessary at this point to -- it is a stop gap
measure, that it's been a long time to settle this program or
this problem rather? You've been in the office now for four years.
A
That's right. I've been here four years and there was
somebody here eight years before and I don't know of a single time
in which this problem has not been one of trying to find some answers
to it. It is almost as bad a problem as welfare from that standpoint
and we have -- we have been meeting their needs. We thought until
this last great strained year, when the inflation rate virtually
doubled.
Q
Governor, the Senate in coming up with the extra money
for education among other things, cut the budget across the board.
They increased their across-the-board cut from 1.4 or 1.6 up to
2.25 per cent. Is your proposal offered to the Conference Committee
an alternative to an across-the-board cut coming up with money?
A
Well, I hope so, yes, because we feel that that was an
unrealistic way to go at it, require legislation to implement it and
also a number of those cuts wouldn't really be cuts -- they might
be cuts at the State level, but they would simply be dumping expendi-
tures back at the local level.
Q
Governor, on this point again, about what's been gone on
before this -- in the second paragraph in the bottom of your statement
here, a Master Plan for higher education in terms and goals. At
a
At a long committee study in 166 or 167, Dr. Rafferty was the Chairman
of i; and I think the President of the Board of Education was on it,
to 30 exactly the same thing. In your own State of the State message
I think in 1969, when you informed your own commission, you told
them to do many of the same things that you are talking about here.
I'm just wondering why you think that something is going to happen now
that hasn't happened before.
A
Well, I think because a number of people have their backs
to
the
wall. We are not talking about a further study, we are
talking about going forward with a program of reorganization now.
2
Well, you said develop a master plan. How do you prepare
a master plan without doing another study?
A
Well, because we think a number of studies have been
made, including our own task force. We want to go forward literally
with -- the main thing is with reorganization of the financial support
of K through 12 education.
0
How do you think the reading achievement score should be
revised?
A
Well, for one thing we think that there should be more than
the one test at the end of the year. We think there -- to be
gainful it ought to be a test at the beginning of the year and pro-
gress test during theyear and one at the end of the year and we think
also there should be some state standards for comparison, something
to measure against.
Q
There is a law -- the legislature passed a law last year
by Assemblyman Greene that set down a whole number of standards for
making comparisons and using them for reading tests or any other
tests that the schools administer.
A
There is no question that some of this is already in
legislative
form
right
now.
Some of what will go forward and be a
part of this whole --
Q
Excuse me, Governor, that's in the law right now.
A
Right.
Q
That they are required to do that.
A
All right, but we are going to insure that this is done and
we are going to insure that there is an auditing team, they know how
to keep score.
Q
If I understood an answer you gave, you indicated your study
group has found districts where there is mismanagement. You think
there is -- can you tell the taxpaveng ano thom
they are?
MR. MEESE: Actually, this was done by outside auditing
group, Governor.
A
This one was done -- oh, as a matter of fact, Cal-Tax
brought some of these to the attention of the people and pointed out
specifics where advantage had not been taken of savings that could be
made. And we just feel that there is enough evidence to warrant
our proposal for an auditing team that will establish some certain
base requirements and then the basis for auditing districts to
make sure that the money is properly being used and that they are
getting the best value for the dollar.
2
When you talk about determining educational goals, are you
saying that there are classes or subjects being taught now that should
not be taught or --
A
Now, some ofthis you are going to have to get at John
Kehoe and some of those who have been dealing with all of this.
I'm going to make no pretense that I suddenly have become an authority
on the academic world. I've never pretended that. I've told you
that I don't think there are over a half a dozen people that under-
stand school financing and I don't claim to be one of them. So the
same thing would apply here.
Q
Last week when you were asked about using some of the
forgiveness money for getting out of this educational crisis you
said you were fearful of using it for a one-time basis. Are you
moving towards changing that position now, are you talking about using
monies here now ---
A
As I say, we are using one-time and we have made -- we have
proposed to the Conference Committee the use of some. one-time funds
because we recognize this now as an interim step that we -- to do the
reorganization and set up a reorganized school financing program is
going to take beyond the end of this fiscal year. These few weeks
that are remaining to us, and we are going to go forward as we did
with the tax reform program with cooperation of the legislature on
this and hopefully next year in the next session, in January, come
in with a plan with whatever legislation is needed to implement that
plan.
Q
Without using any of the --
A
So this is -- so this is used this one-time thing, to fill
that gap until' the reorganization takes place.
-7-
Q
Governor, I'd like to allude back to the questinn that was
asked a little earlier. Unlike a natural disaster which suddenly
requires massive amounts of state aid, unpredicted, I'm still not
clear on why all these problems in the school weren't predictable,
why this suddenly becomes an emergency effort now.
A
Well, I wish I knew the answer to that, but I can only
point to the increases that have been given every year in school
financing and the fact that a number of programs, there was AB 272
with its $150 million dollar mistake, and then there was last year's
606, and each time the State has been trying to come up and meet
its requirements in school financing. We gave last year the biggest
increase, the schools have ever received and wound up with the first
great strike in our school's history down in Los Angeles. And now
I think that the-- the real answer to your question is that the
compounding of the problems, and which were seemingly alleviated or
at least helped by the additional grants of the State each year,
were compounded or complicated by the great increase in the inflation
rate this last year, to where now we do have school districts that
are actually talking about being unable to pay their bills, being
bankrupt and finally instead of us trying to meet the problem within
the existing formula andjust give them more state money, I think you
are finding a determination now on the part of legislators as well
as our administration that we cannot go on trying to solve their
problem by pouring more money into a financial system that obviously
is not doing the job, that is contributing to the inequities and
so we are going to draw back and we are going to reorganize that whole
setup.
8
Would the reorganization next year involve additional state
money on a permanent basis for schools to replace this one-time
funding?
A
Well, this I couldn't tell you. By that time I think we
will have a handle on exactly what is the financial need. In other
words, I'm frankly stating that we are going to put this money in
now because there is a financial need, but if a part or all of that
financial need or even more has been created by a misuse of the
present -- the present funds, and we cure that problem, we will
govern ourselves accordingly. If, next year, in a reorganization of
this kind it is determined that more money is needed, that this is a
part of the problem even after all the mismanagement and inefficiencies
eurod NO
this case to the people of California.
Q
Even if it involves a tax increase?
A
Well, I have always said if that -- if that is revealed as
an absolute necessity, yes, but we do not believe that a tax increase
is justified now for this interim period.
Q
Governor, how would that fit in with the expenditure limit
controls that are presently in your tax reform package?
A
Well, I don't think -- I think that this move that we are
making here takes, as I have said it should -- takes the matter of
school financing out of tax reform completely because I don't see--
if we really believe as we do that the property taxpayer, the
home owner is paying an unjust share and we are trying to evolve a
tax system that will give him some relief -- I don't think we can
suddenly change our mind and turn back to him as a source of revenue
for education or anything else. If more money is needed, then we
have to find a source of revenue other than the home owner or we go
right back to the same problem we have had this time.
Q
Governor, I'd like to clarify one other thing. Are you
going to publicly state or suggest a method of finding this $70
million increase or is this something between you and the Conference
Committee?
A
Well, they didn't go into detail with us because there
wasn't time for one thing in the meeting as to all of the areas that
they are looking at in the budget, and I think there was an indication
that they probably have found some that we haven't submitted. So
we simply submitted our, package to them and said we'had to go by the
budget we had submitted, and the method of finding the additional money,
we are telling you to find, and here are our proposals, add them to
what you have.
Q
Will your proposals be made public?
A
Well, now, this would depend on the committee. I don't
know that they will put them in a separate package ornot, these are
all a part of the things that they can now look at.
PAUL BECK: We refer to a number of them, like the welfare.
bill, the truck tax --
Q
Ithought you might put out a statement or something listing
them all.
PAUL BECK: No, that's basically what they are.
A
I want to make it plain we are not attempting to dictate to
-9-
that conference committee, that we are offering them all the help we --
Q
I just wondered in detail what your proposals were.
A
The biggest bulk of them were these one-time things from the
welfare bill, the X factor, the truck tax, the several million dollar
surplus in the driver's education fund and you've got the bulk of
the money right there.
Q
What about the utility tax proposed, Bagley's bill?
A
We didn't even mention that one.
Q
You would endorse that previously and that would go for
local schools --
A
Yes, althcugh I-would call to your attention where that
would not meet all of this problem, that was earmarked for those
specific areas where the utilities were being taxes, and some of those
might be areas where they don't have the need.
Q
Governor Reagan, there have been charges that compulsory
busing is adding a great deal to the cost of local school education.
Do you agree with this, Number one, and are you in basic agreement
with the Wakefield measure which passed the Assembly yesterday?
A
Now, with my first qualification that I never talk about
pending legislation, I am in sympathy with the goal or the purpose
behind it. I do not and have never favored busing as an answer
to the problem that it is being used for. And I have found from
members of the minority community and parents of children in the
minority communities that this isn't their answer either, they want
better education in the schools their children are now attending and
I think this is the answer to the problem, not trying to take the
children some place else.
Q
Governor, I'have another question, having to do with the
education bill. When you talk about reorganization of the structure
of education system, the administration within the districts,
aren't you in a province that really is that of Dr. Rafferty and do
you think that he's in any way responsible for -- at this time?
A
No, and Dr. Rafferty and his people have been a part of this
task force of ours, that's been working on this reorganization plan.
You have to remember that basically our school systems are local
controlled and are local school systems and what we are suggesting is
certainly not trying to impose on that. We do believe, however,
that the: idea of a statewide auditing with regard to the use of state
funds is justified and is not again taking the control of schools and
school policy away from the local districts.
Q
Governor, you don't think that is an initiative that should
come from him rather than you?
A
Well, it has in a way, he's a part of the task force that
has been working on this.
8
Governor, you stated that this reorganization of schools
would take the matter of school financing out of the tax reform
program. Does that mean that that portion out of the tax reform
program will be dropped?
A
No, what I meant was those people who are discussing the
tax reform program in Committeeright now, from the standpoint of some
of them, that they won't support it unless it makes provision for money
for schools and we have said repeatedly that these are two separate
items, and we have made this one separate item right now a budget
item for discussion in the budget, and there is no reason in the
world for anyone to hold up the tax reform program as they have
threatened to do unless it includes some additional money for schools.
We have made the provision for the additional money for schools.
D
Governor, did your package for financing also include cut-
ting out the money for the Consumer Council and the Commission on the
Californias?
A
These were -- I don't recall -- I can't recall all of the
areas where there were -- where these cuts were made. I don't think
SO.
8
Governor Reaga, do you plan to publicly support Dr. Rafferty
in his runoff campaign for state superintendent of education?
A
Well, this is a non-partisan race and I don't think there
is any secret about how I feel about Dr. Rafferty and --
Q
Then you'll suport him, is that it?
(Laughter)
A
Well, when you say that, Squire, then you get me in --
I haven't even given that a thought, when you get me into that you
get me into what extent and how. I'm acknowledging that I don't
think there is any secret that I have always favored his candidacy
and still do.
8
Will you publicly support him?
A
I can't be much more public than this unless you fellows
are going to keep this a secret.
(Laughter)
-11-
Q
Governor, when and who participated in -- was there a
meeting with the Conference Committee from your office where these
were laid out?
A
We met with the Chairman of the Committee and a couple of
the other members of the Committee on the Republican side were there.
I have also been having meetings this morning with other legislative
leaders, committee chairmen and so forth, telling them of this plan.
All of them seemed to be highly approving. Again, as I say, this
part, the interim part is suggested as guidelines to the Conference
Committee.
Q
Was Senator Teale present in any of these meetings?
A
No. So far we kept this all on our side of the fence.
Q
Have you personally seen Alan Post's recommendations for
elimination of a number of agencies and boards who he sais is all
talk and no action?
A
Yes, I have.
Q
What's your view on it?
A
Well, I -- I'm not in agreement. I think he found a great
many that we also found. I think there are others I'm not in agree-
ment with, just to blanket-wide go at California's traditional form
of government for a savings that would total only a few hundred
thousand dollars is not necessarily beneficial.
Q
Governor, yesterday Dr. Hayakawa proposed that the legisla-
ture restore the five per cent pay raises that were held from the
faculty members saying that fewer than five per cent were guilty of
infractions and therefore the majority were being punished for the
infractions of the few. Do you agree with this?
A
Well, I agree that themajority of the faculty and I've always
stated, I think are sound citizens. On the other hand, some of them
have told us that they believe that they themselves have been guilty
of too much silence, silence for too long, on their own campuses.
Q
Are you going to help them get a five per cent cost of living
raise?
A
This is now in the handsof the Conference Committee.
That was deleted in both houses, as I understand it, and the Conference
Committeehas that problem before it.
SQUIRE: Any more questions?
Q
Governor, in the budget cuts the Professor's salaries would
be
cut as well. Do you feel the Professor's salaries should be cut?
A
You are talking about the across-the-board cut. No, I
certainly don't believe that anyone should be cut below his present
income.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
o0o
-12-