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
118564102
label
Transcripts - 07/07/1970, 07/15/1970, 07/21/1970, 07/28/1970
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564102
contentType
document
title
Transcripts - 07/07/1970, 07/15/1970, 07/21/1970, 07/28/1970
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
118564102
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
ba150f80cd5b6045
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 -
07/07/1970, 07/15/1970, 07/21/1970, 07/28/1970
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
7/7
PRESS
FERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONAI
REAGAN
HELD JULY 7, 1970
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corpsfor 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:
Well, Happy past 4th of July. No
opening statement other than How do you do.
a
Governor, Hugh Fluornoy says something has to be done to
prevent this budget impasse from occurrding again and one of the
things he suggested was doing away with the two-thirds approval
requirement of the budget. Would you favor that or would you favor
any of his other suggestions?
A
Well, I've got an open mind on what would be the best
method, but I think definitely smething should be done. My mind
has been turning to possibly a continuation of the past year's budget,
but I think you'd have to then have no retroactive feature with regard
to the new budget that had to be some pressure on them to keep them
moving. But whatever it is, all I can tell you is that I am in
agreement, something must be done.
o
Governor, one of the discussions in the Assembly was having
a special legislative committee to screen budget requests as they
are made to the Finance Department so that the legislature will be
more aware of what -- of the entire budgetary process, king of a check
on the Executive Department. Would you support this concept?
A
Well, I don't think they quite understand how long and
how hard this budgetary process is when department heads are going
over priorities, the changes of mind that occur, the alternatives
that are presented and the long selection of alternatives. I didn't
react too favorably to that one. I must point out that in this last
budget and in last year's budget, actually the legislature has had
it for a long time. The only thing that happened this year was the
last minute change that had to be made due to the reduction of the
budget because of -- of the change in estimates both as to welfare
spending and as to revenues.
But even there it was simply a case of
-1-
going back to th Conference Committee with e priorities that had
been considered at one time things that had been left in the budget and
helping and consulting with them on what further reductions could be
made in that budget. I think the legislature has had the budget
for a long time.1 Last year it was gotten out to the floor earlier
than it had ever been done in history, to my understanding.
0
Well, their argument was that they should be more aware of
what's going on and how the -- how the budget recommendations are --
on what they are based, the information that goes into the Finance
Department and then comes out in your budget when they frist see it.
A
Well, possibly there couldbbe some earlier meetings with
legislative leadership or the appropriate committees on some of these
things and how we were doing what we were arriving at, consultation
with regard to priorities.
Q
Governor, how did that $15,000 for the rent of the mansion
get into the budget and do you approve of it?
A
It came out of the Converence Committee and yes, I have
to tell you I approve of it. As a matter of fact, when the fuss
was raised a fe W months ago about that, I had to say at the time,
came in and told my own people and told some of the legislators that
as far as I was concerned the state could buy the house or the state
could rent the house, but I was sick and tired of being held up to pub-
lic view for committing the crime of renting my own house when the law
requires that the state provide one. Maybe I made the mistake in
the first place by paying the rent myself, it did set a precedent
that could be quite a problem for someone elected Governor, who was
unable to do such a thing. So I'm glad to see it is there.
Q
Well, along those lines, Governor, would you like to see
an appropriatinn bill go through for the construction of the
Governor's Mansion?
A
Well, right now that's, of course, a rather rough problem
with the present state of the budget. The economy -- but yes, it's
been about 30 years too long in coming. Something should be done
of that kind as we have said before. There are groups of citizens
in the State, onee again, working with the idea of raising funds outside
of government for this purpose, and I certainly hope they're success-
ful.
Maybe it will wind up as a kind of combination of the private
citizens and supplemental help from government. But it's long overdo.
Q
Governor, you talked several times this year about abuses
-2-
in the area of W( are. You advocated cuts 1 the Welfare Depart-
ment.
There aren't any such cuts in the present budget that you
signed. In fact there were increases in that area. Do you think
that -- is that a disappointment to you or are you trying to do
anything -- are you taking any initiatives on your own to try and cut
welfare spending?
A
Well, we are engaged in quite a program now. There was
legislation introduced to cut welfare, legislation which SO far the
legislature has seen unfit to pass. The biggest problem we have is
that most of what is wrong with welfare is mandated either by state
statutes or mainly by federal laws and regulations. We are working
on a welfare reform program with the idean then of coming forth
based on that program of asking for changes in the federal regulations
and laws and asking for changes in whatever state laws. I have
issued orders to review again whatever state regulations are responsible
for some of the growth in staff at the county level, to review and
see if there are places where we can change or eliminate state regu-
lations, such as regulations pertaining to the proportion of super-
visors, the proportionate number of welfare workers to those on welfare
and so forth. This problem, as I have said before, must be controlled.
This is the greatest single cause of the State's financial condition
that we have. And was more than half responsible for the out of
balance of the budget we discovered in May. But, as I say, it is
mandated by statutes and by law, federal law.
Q
If you had studies of this kind in the past and still
haven't been able to come up with any substantial out, in welfare
program, why is there this consistent problem of no solution offering
itself?
A
Well, that's not quite true. We have made great savings
in the administrative overhead of welfare. We have made great
administrative savings in the overhead of Medi-Cal. We have been
frustrated in several of our attempts by court decisions, both at the
federal level and hear in the state and again we have been frustrated
in several experimental attempts that we have made and which they --
they didn't pan out and usually because of court decisions and
because of running afoul of federal regulations and laws. Now,
the one program we inherited that was passed by the previous administra-
tion and which they didn't have to provide anything for it, that fell
on our necks, was Medi-Cal. I would call to your attention a number
of times that we have been reversed on things we tried to do with
-3-
regard to that program. So we are trying again. This time we
are going at it on an over-all experimental basis openly aimed at
going outside the regulations and then seeking permission to do so,
instead of trying to reform it and make our reforms within the frame-
work of the multitudeness regulations that are imposed on us.
Q
Governor, the Democrats --
Q
-- the Court decisions, doesn't that suggest there is
something wrong with your changes rather than necessarily the courts?
PAUL BECK: Governor --
A
No, I would suggest that sometimes it might suggest that
there is something wrong with the Court's interpretation and I'm not
above criticizing the Court now and then.
PAUL BECK: Governor, if I could add, I think in the next
period -- short period there will be some further announcements on
administrative changes in welfare.
Q
Governor, the Democrats in the Senate have indicated that
their next target is your tax reform plan. Among two of their
problems, as they see it, are the 20 per cent discount on the property
taxes after the thousand dollar deduction. They say this is
unfair to the lower income people. And the other is that they have
an idea that part of that money earmarked for property tax relief
should be instead -- be sent to the schools. Without those changes
they have indicated they will oppose your bill. Are you receptive
to those kind of changes in the program?
A
No, and I am very much concerned that the same element of
Democrats who frustrated the budget for a while are going to continue
in the same way on this tax reform program. You mentioned two
problems there and I'll have to address myself to both of them.
Number one, the idea that a 20 per cent across the board
reduction in property tax is somehow unfair to those with the lower
priced homes and the lower income bracket just isn't quite true.
First of all, the total reductions for every home in California will
range from a. minimum of about 25 per cent to about 40 per cent and
the 40 per cent will be at the lower range in home value. Now,
there is a certain dichotomy in what I'm going to say at this point,
because we ourselves by going partially for a flat exemption of a
thousand dollars and then 20 per cent on top of that have in a sense,
if this bill is adopted, made the property tax a little bit progressive
-4-
but only a little
it.
The thousand dollar xemption, is of course,
of greater value in the lower priced home, percentagewise, than it
is when you get into the -- into a higher priced home, but to suggest
that this 20 per cent flat cut across the board is somehow discrimi-
natory is to go against the theory of property tax that we have known
since the property tax inception. Property tax is not progressive,
it is proportionate. You pay on 20 per cent -- 25 per cent of the
assessed valuation of theproperty and you pay the same rate whether
the property is worth a million or whether it is worth a thousand.
Now, for us to change and have a decreasing percentage depending on
the value of the home would be for the first time in history to make
property tax progressive. It would have a different scale or rate
of taxation and I think that the -- even the fact that to benefit
those at the extremely lower income range we have made first of all
the flat exemption and then have added the 20 per cent to it violates
what I've said about a sliding scale. It doesn't do it to such an
extent that we are in violation of the principal of proportionate
taxation.
Q
Then about the schools.
A
Now, about the school thing. Here again I can only repeat
what I've said to you before, and which I guess I got lost in the
news some place and other things of more interest captured your
attention, we recognize there is a problem of school financing.
We
have frankly stated that the $102 million dollars in this budget is
one-time revenue for the coming year to hopefully get the schools
past and through this period of needwhile we come up with a long
time reform of school financing. We recognize that this must be
done from the state level. We are prepared to deal with this.
We
intend to deal with it. We have a task force going forward already,
with this in the session -- coming session we hope that with the
help of the legislature we will be able to present a program that will
local
once and for all meet the problem of/school financing, and we are not
neglecting
this
in
any
way.
What I have answered to those who right
now want to -- first wanted to hold the budget for ransom and now
want to oppose the tax reform program unless it can become a tax
increase of some $180 million dollars is that they are suggesting
at this point throwing 180 million dollars into school financing
when they, themselves, cannot tell you or tell the public that this
is absolutely needed and all we know is that we have had in these
four years, including the budget just passed, the greatest four-year
-5-
increase of state funding for schools in any four year period in the
history of California. I'm a little tired of this administration
being picked on as not supporting the schools when we are 172 million
dollars above, in these four years, the largest four year period of
the Brown administration in its eight years, in state help to schools.
But we do know there is something wrong. We know something's wrong
when 85 per cent of all of that money we have given to the schools
has gone only to increase teachers' salaries, not to solve the many
other problems of the school financing about which they are talking
at present. So we believe that we are right in doing something
temporary while we go forward and try to solve the problem on a long-
range basis.
Q
Governor, part of the criticism from Democrats and others
seems to be that that by going ahead with tax reform at this time
and delaying the schools, which is maybe justified, that you are using
up tax sources that perhaps if it does come -- if your studies do show
you need massive infusion of funds for the school system, where are
you going to get it after you've used it up for property tax relief?
A
Well, let me answer that on the problem of property tax
right now, and I think everyone has agreed on this. Number one, you
cannot ask, and this is the very thing not only the people but the
schools themselves are saying, you cannot ask the property taxpayer
to pay a bigger share than he's now paying for education support.
This is what is wrong. There is too much reliance on it. Also, I
think almost all of us agree that the property tax burden at present
is too large. Now, all we are doing with tqx reform is trying to
correct an inequity in the whole tax structure of California. There
is one area where the tax is out of line. The people say it is in
every survey, fantastic numbers that cross party lines, that the
property taxpayer is paying an unjust share, it is out of proportion frc
the burden imposed on taxpayers who aren't property owners. Now, all
we are seeking to do with tax reform is shift some of that unfair
burden to broader based taxes that are paid by everybody, including
the property taxpayer. It is simply a restructuring of a tax program.
The matter of whether additional revenues must be raised if schools
next year should call for it às a result of our task force approach,
then this must be weighed against a fair tax structure. And it
doesn't do any good to maintain an unfair tax structure until you know
whether you are going to need more money in the future. And I don't
-6-
see
that
it
makes
any
change
at
all.
We wou_d still have to face this
problem of giving the home owner, particularly, some tax relief.
And we are trying to do that now with this program. And the terrible
thing is those Democrats who at present say they are going to oppose
this program are doing it because they demand that half of that tax
be
reduction for the property owner be taken from him and/added to the
increased cost of government.
Q
Governor, on this matter of 85 per cent of the new school
money going into salary increases, isn't there a misunderstanding
there? I heard this argument used upstairs, but I think the school
people will admit that 85 per cent of the school money goes into
salaries, but not salary increases. In other words, the new money
would go to hire more teachers to reduce class ratios, etcetera.
And some maybe for salary increases, but to say that all of the 85
per cent of it goes into salary increases, I think, is misleading
from the arguments I hear upstairs.
A
I'd be happy to check with Finance Department, but that
was my understanding, that of the money we have increased that is
what has happened. So it is not a theory of the future, it is what
has happened in the past and I know some of our people who met with
some of the school authorities asked them if they could guarantee
that this would not be the fate of additional money to the schools
and there was no guarantee, they had to admit this is' probably what
would have happened.
Q
Governor, have you contemplated campaigning in the districts
of those legislators who held out against your budget and will against
your tax program further?
A
Now, you've got a kind -- you've got a double question
there.
What will I do with regard to those who held out against
the budget or what will I do if they hold out against the tax reform.
As far as the budget is concerned, the budget has been passed. I
have no spirit of vengence at all. I would feel, however, that if
there were legislators that made it impossible to give the home
owners in this state a tax reduction from their unjust burden, I
would feel that I had a responsibility to point out to the people
that -- who had denied them that tax decrease.
8
Senator Teale today characterized the 20 per cent part
of the assessment reduction as richman's welfare, they will get that
much a greater share. How do you respond to that argument that's
sure to be made?
-7-
A
Well, I
like to compare it to the
ill
that
so
many
of
them seemed to want to support earlier in substitute for mine, the
Gonsalves bill, which by analysis did give the greatest tax break to
the higher priced homes and if anything worked a hardship on the
lower priced homes, and they didn't seem to find anything wrong with
that particular bill. We did, for that very reason. Now, I don't
see how they can suggest that we are giving someone welfare when we
are suggesting a cross-the-board reduction of the home owner's tax
and they instead want to use some of that reduction instead to
increase the cost of government. They are not benefiting in wanting
to npenalize one section of the economy. They are not doing anything
to benefit someone in the lower brackets at all. The average price
home in California is $20,000, and I think you'll find that a
$20,000 -- our tax reform program from there down to about a $10,000
home is giving a better break than anything that's been suggested
by the opposition.
0
Another topic, Governor. There are reports that Murray
Chotiner and Lyn Nofziger will come to California to campaign
for Senator: Murphy. Two questions. Do you think this indicates
a feeling of doubt about Senator Murphy's chances of re-election and
will you welcome these two men coming into California to campaign?
A
Oh, I don't know anything about Murph's campaign or whether
he wants -- I know national officers that way, many times, have
people from the Washington scene help them. The opposition in 166
to me even had help from Washington and those weren't national offices.
But I don't know. I met with Lyn Nofziger when he was out here
these past several days at the summer White House, and he didn't say
anything to me. As a matter of fact, he indicated no, that he would!t
be doing anything in California, he's got a job in Washington and that's
where he'll be.
Q
What is your feeling on them coming out here and working
in the Senator's campaign?
A
Well, that's his campaign and whatever he's chosen as his
strategy, that is up to him. I won't be doing that for my own, but
then I'm not running for an office that -- a national office in
Washington.
Q
Governor, legislators in the final version of your budget
wiped out the office of Consumer Council. What is your reaction
to that and do you plan to reappoint Kay Valory in some other post?
-8-
A
Well, he
S one I can't answer in (
detail on this because
they -- in the cuts that came out they gave us a great many problems
in the Executive Department that administratively we are going
to have to solve and we just haven't had time to get down to solving
those.
Q
Do you feel you could get along without her?
A
No, we -- no, I'm not giving an answer to that, until we --
it is going to call -- well, we are engaged, as you know, in a desire
to reorganize the whole department and this has just further compli-
cated that reorganization.
2
Governor, on another subject, the State constitution requires
you to "immediately" call a special election in case of vacancy.
Now, you've done so in the case of the vacancy caused by the recent
election of Senator Schmitz, the Congressman, not in the case of the
vacancy created by the death of Assemblyman McGee. Will you explain
why you. have delayed in the McGee vacancy calling a special election
there despite the constitutional provision?
A
There was a problem of the dandidate in the November election
and working out both the time of the election and the candidacy
situation in regard to that. It just was the time. I know we
discussed all of those that were caused and I honestly couldn't stand
here now with what's been going on in the last couple of weeks and
remember.
Q
Are you going to call a special election in the McGee seat
or let the Central Committee --
A
The Central Committ has already named the nominee.
Q
Will you call any special at all for the interim?
A
That -- you usually ask the Central Committee, the State
Central Committee their advice and counsel on these things.
Q
You don't consider a constitutional provision mandatory
then that says you must call a special election immediately?
A
Well, I remember a couple of times in the previous admini-
stration when immediately took about two years.
Q
And you were critical of the previous administration.
A
But I haven't taken two years, we are talking about two
months.
Q
Wasn't there also the hopeful assumption that the legisla-
ture might adjourn sometime before December?
A
I was hoping that, which would sort of ob viate the
-9-
necessity for a S. cial election.
Q
Throughout the last week we heard repeatedly the assertion
your budget will leave the state in the same kind of position as
Pat Brown's last budget, that built in is a guarantee of five hundred
million dollars or larger tax increase next year. When will you
know whether that's true or can you deny that now?
A
No, I don't -- I don't subscribe to that at all.
I
recognize that there are things in the budget such as the one we
discussed earlier, welfare, that are beyond our control, because of
mandate bylaw. So far we have been bringing the budget into control
with our own savings and not with the kind of gimmicks that were
employed before, where someone created a single source of revenue.
The only one-time funding with single sources is the one that I told
you was one-time, which was the present 102 million dollars for
schools. Others we have created out of our own savings, we are
continuing along that line and at the moment no, I'm not prepared
to say that a tax increase is necessary. I realize that for
political purposes that seems to be a song that is being sung
by some here in the state. But I haven't bothered to learn the
tune.
Q
But, Governor --
Q
Governor, following up that question, two years ago you said
you were moving away from bond funds used for construction and going
to pay as you go construction. Yet to balance this budget you've
done just exactly the opposite. Now, how do you justify that in
reference to your last statement?
A
No.
Q
Isn't that in effect a gimmick in order to balance the
budget?
A
No, we were caught by this emergency this time, with the
declining revenues and the excessive costs of welfare. We also at
the same time have undergone a long period of -- in which we could
not keep pace with construction because of the inability to sell bonds.
I don't think there is anything wrong with now taking advantage of --
of the breaking of that log jam with the passage of Proposition 7,
but the gimmicks that I'm referring to are gimmicks such as changing
the bookkeeping structure of the state so as for one year to get 15
months revenue to pay for 12 months cost of government, without facing
what you are going to do when you get to the next year and only have
-10-
12 months revenue or the government you've 1 lt up to that size
or one time advancing the collection of taxes for a one-time windfall
to pay for programs you tried to pass. We have done exactly the
oppssite. We have been balancing out of our own fat, we have
been cutting the cost of government in areas where we could cut and
using that money in those areas where we couldn't cut to balance
budget and I don't think that this could be called gimmickry.
Q
Are you still committed to pay as you go financing for capital
construction?
A
If you are referring to the fact that back during the '66
campaign it was my understanding that this could be the policy of the
universities when they came to me and asked me as a candidate to
join the then Governor as honorary -- or campaigncchairman for the
university bond issue, I was told at that time that that was the last
bond issue the university required. I took them at their word.
They said it could be pay as you go. Subsequent to that I learned
that the university was even then planning a second bond issue, the
one that was defeated in '68, and that the expansion of the univer-
sity and the campuses still to be built could not possibly be built
out of -- on-going revenues. I didn't know that at the time that
they had solicited my support for the first bond issue. I have to
tell you now as a Regent, if this univeristy is to complete the
campuses and keep pace with the growth over the period of time, obvi-
ously it cannot be done out of on-going revenues, it must be the
result of bonds. Wait a minute, I recognized someone over here.
Q
Governor, last week Mark Hatfield made some observation
about the 1972 Presidential election. He said the Nixon administra-
tion doesn't solve the problems, that you would be the benefactor.
Do you have any comment on that?
A
Yes. There was absolutely no reason or need for his
statement. I find that utterly ridiculous and I don't see why in
the world he would lend himself to those whose idea of politics is
to seek to drive wedges within a party. We have cooperated fully
with the administration. I am in support of the policies. And as
I have said here before, I intend to be re-elected Governor for the
next four years in the State of California, add that's as far as any
political aspirations of mine go, and I suspect in about another two
years -- well, whether I'm elected or not, to be supporting the
-11-
renomination of th encumbent president.
Q
What forces did Senator Hatfield lend himself to?
A
Oh, I think this attempt to drive wedges to split and
factionalize a party is standard politics, and if he was in the other
party I could understand his lending himself to that. I can't
understand him as a Republican Senator playing that same game, which
couldn't help but try to be harmful to both the President and to my--
self.
D
Did you communicate these thought S personally to the
Senator Hatfield since he made his statement?
A
No, I haven't communicated with him at all. I'm still
counting to ten.
(Laughter)
Q
Governor, back to the budget again, a few weeks ago you
said you were fearful of one-time windfall money for -- at the time
the suggestion was for education, to use this forgiveness money for
education. Now, you signedua budget which contains one-time money.
What made you change your mind in thae three weeks?
A
No, I frankly stated that with this problem that we have
been trying to solve of school financing and recognizing that they
absolutely had to have some money, regardless of the cost, that they
had to have some money for this coming year, while we tried to find
a long-range solution to their problem, that we had to -- we had to
find one-time money such as the one-time use of the truck tax, the
use of some money that was made available by way of surplus and so
forth, and I frankly explained that we were justified in doing this
because this is a one-time problem, we hope to come forth next year
and expect to come forth with a long-range answer to a long-time
problem that a great many in the legislature and the administrations
preceding us have not had the courage to face, and that is that
reform of school financing was desperately needed in California. And
Q
Governor, there is somebody wants a civil rights question
back there, I think.
A
There.
Q
Governor, another subject. In a recent article in a
London Observer, stated you were working on a super secretive plan
to stop revolution in the state, using all sorts of electronic means to
stop campus disputes and -- was told those sorts of thing. Do you
know anything about this article written by Charles Foley in the London
-12-
Observer?
A
I sure don't and if he -- and if he knows a secret about
stopping campus disturbances, I'd be delighted to hear it. He
didnt print an answer as to how it could be done?
D
He named some advisors that are supposed to be working
with you on this plan.
A
You are pretty well aware "of all the things that we have
continued openly to try to do by way of the Regents and all the
Regents meetings -- no, I have no super secret plan.
I'd like, however, to hear one.
D
William Buckley now suggests that the police in Santa
Barbara, all the law enforcement agencies in Santa Barbara were a
little over-enthusiastic in this recent Isla Vista fracus. Are you
investigating the conduct of law enforcement people down there?
A
Well, I read Mr. Buckley's column which was quoting one
graduate student there as to some experiences, and Mr. Buckley was
properly expressing his abhorrence of that, if those things took
place. I will express the same abhorrence, if law enforcement was out
of line, we should know it, and something should be done about it.
The investigation is being conducted by the Attorney General's office
and they know our interest in it and we have communicated with them.
We want to keep informed. There still seems to be a great deal
of controversy about those things, whether they happened. For
example, I myself have had communication with someone who claims to
have been in a building where the doors were kicked in and a needless
search was made because someone shot a marble out of a window with a
sling shot. Well, that was one version. The real version was
that observers with field glasses saw from a number of windows in that
building the police being fired on with sling shots that were not the
fork-stick-rubbert band variety that kids make, but were a real sporter
sling shots firing metal objects that -- metal bails that I guess are
used for hunting now, and that have the principle of a dum-dum bullet
and this was why the raid on the buildings, the result of actual
observations.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
Q
As a result of the investigations we can expect some kind
of a result?
A
I would think so, yes.
000
-13-
7/2
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR REAGAN
HELD JULY 15, 1970
Reported by
Beverly Toms
(The transcript of the press conference is for the
Capitol press corps. Because of theneed to get it to them as soon
as possible, there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy, and no
corrections are made.)
o0o
GOVERNOR REAGAN:
We have some visitors here from the
University of California, Santa Barbara; one from UCLA, who's also
working here in the capitol. Education will be equally effective.
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read release No. 369.)
Q
Governor, do you expect the United Republican support for
this program in the Senate?
A
I'm going to do my best to see that we have it. I know
that there are some individuals up there who found here and there a
pointwhich they take issue, but I believe the over-all tax reform pro-
gram is probably the best one that has ever been submitted in this
state, and I believe that almost anyone should be able to swallow
whatever difference he has here and there on a point or something
contrary to go along with it.
Q
Governor, apparently part of this maneuver, all the organi-
zations representing local governments and all the organizations
representing the schools, they all claim problems with it. How come
you haven't been able to convince them that they should be happy?
A
Yes, that's right, and I don't know that I could convince
them, but I would like to also call to the attention of the taxpayers
as to the manner in which they're being represented at the local level.
The principal objection which some local government representatives
and some school representatives have to our tax reform proposals is
the fact that once having reduced the property tax and giving relief
there we have included measures to try and see that the property tax
will not just automatically go right back up. And these people seem
to have SO: little faith in the American system that they object to
our provisions which would insist that the people themselves, the
taxpayers, be allowed to vote on whether their property tax is increased
in the future and it is hard for me to understand how they aan hold
to this position. What they in reality are saying, is that they would
have no fault with our tax reform program basically if we would give
them the authority without a vote of the people to go back and increase
the property taxes. If we get them reduced, this is our goal, to
insure that the people have some measure of protection and that this
archaic and outmoded form of taxation does not go right backup to
become the burden it now is.
Q
Governor, what's this got to do with the American system,
asyyou mentioned?
A
I think the American system of having some faith in the people
right to make decisionsin their own behalf; all that we have really
said with regard to restrictions on further increases of the property
tax is to allow the voters themselves to decide whether they want
that tax to be increased, and a number of local government officials,
not all of them -- we have had many county Supervisors come in and
tell us they have no quarrel with this tax pregram whatsoever, and they
do not go along with the position of their own organization, but we
have insured that the voters can -- this is what I mean by the
American system, that those who have so little faith in the people
that they want to deny them this control over their own welfare.
8
Governor, are you saying then this is a democracy, not a
republic?
A
No, I believe it is a republic. We tried every way we
could to find some way to insurenthat the property tax would stay
down and the best way we foundis to put this in the hands at the local
level. It is not too far afield from custom in the past, tax
overrides and so forth for educational costs that must be submitted
to the people, school bond issues.
0
Governor, this morning Mr. Unruh said you are downgrading
education. You head the heaviest cuts in education. He wants to
know if this is a conspiracy against public schools and so forth
What
about that?
A
Well, no, since Mr. Unruh was called by many of you here
in this room for several years before I got here, the most powerful
man in Sacramento, he might be interested in explaining how the most
powerful man in Sacramento over the years preceding this administration
let the state's share of public school funding decline from 45.6 per
cent down to 41 per cent and why this administration in the few years
we have been here have increased it -- well, the actual increase over
any other four-year period in state's history, we have exceeded it
by 175 million dollars, over these four years. So his figures just--
or his claim isn't substantiated by his record.
Q
Governor -- well, Governor, he says there is going to be a
$400 million dollar tax increase next year regardless of who's governor
and that this is largely because of fiscal irresponsibility on the part
of the Reagan administration.
A
Well, he should be an authority on fiscal irresponsibility.
He precided over some of the greatest that had this state virtually
insolvent three and a half years ago, but I find it a little hard to
take seriously the remarks of a man who has only been in the Assembly
six days since last April, and on his first day home from a European
vacation, having missed the budget battle and some of the more impor-
tant legislative matters that go on perhaps this explains his lack of
understanding of just what we have been accomplishing here.
Q
Governor, back to the tax reform package, one of the criti-
cisms voiced against your plan is that for renters with a family
and earning less than $9500 a year, the net effect of all your changes
would be to increase their taxes. Would you address yourself to that
criticism and say whether you would be willing to have any changes
made to meet that criticism.
A
Yes, I don't think that it holds up and it doesn't match
ours. We were -- you might be able to find a particular example
someplace of someone whose taxes would be increased. Now, there is
no question but that in getting the same total amount of revenue from
the people of California, and by relieving one particular group of a
burden they are now paying, the excessive property tax, that it would
seem obvious that in spreading this burden over all of them that some
citizens who are not now paying what is -- should be an equitable
share might find themselves paying more, but we disoover that there
are enough of our -- enough of the sources that we are turning to
are business oriented, that over-all the average taxpayer is probably
going to come out with a slight reduction. Because in gaining the amount
of money that is presently being paid by the citizen and by the --
of course now, you can hang me up to dry on this, and I'm not refuting
my original belief, I believe that those business taxes will eventually
be paid by the people in the price of the product they buy. But
talking about direct taxes, we have made shifts of some of the money
to additional business taxes, and this is helping compensate for the
property tax reduction. So we -- we find over-all that if anything
Q
Governor, would you favor a vote of the people on every tax
raised by the legislature?
A
No, and I don't think I've said that, but I think it is also
one of those that you can't draw a hard line and say it all must be
this way and all must be the other, then we would -- we wouldn't turn
to the people again for bond issues, for tax overrides and that sort
of thing. We have always recognized a certain amount of turning to
the people for this kind of tax and I think in this instance we are
in keeping with that tradition in saying that the property taxpayer --
I, as you know, have favored such as for the income tax -- I have
favored having a two-thirds vote in the legislature and you'd think
after the budget battle that I'd be a little frightened of that, but
I'm not. I would like to see it take a two-thirds vote.
Q
Governor, back to the $400 million dollar tax increase that
Assemblyman Unruh says will come regardless of who's governor.
Then you deny that this will happen or dispute this?
A
We are working already on the budget for next year and
our goal is going to be as it has been for the last three years.
Our goal is to come forth with a budget and a balanced budget with no
tax increase.
o
Are you optimistic about that, Governor?
A
I'm optimistic, maybe more so than others. You'll remember
that in a week or so ago, in here I told you that there were factors
beyond our control that we have trouble getting a handle on this
welfare spending. This is mandated on us by the federal government
in such a way that if we just cannot come up to meet the increased
welfare demand with the savings and economies we can make in other
departments of government as we have done in the past, this would be
one that -- where we'd have no other choice, but I am reasonably
optimistic right now,' and certainly, as I say, our goal is not what
seems to be the goal of some others upstairs whoever, just automatic-
ally assuming that they are going to have it. I call to your atten-
tion also that some of those that were preaching this the loudest
have made every effort to begin now with increasing the spending
of state government and they number among them the authors of some of
the $335 million dollars in spending bills which I have vetoed in the
last three years.
Q
If you are optimistic, Governor, who is less optimistic
within the administration? Is it the director of the Department of
-4-
Finance who is less optimistic?
A
tho could look at Verne Orr and believe that he is anything
but optimistic, his smiling face would reassure you at all times.
Q
Governor, you are not definitely ruling out the possibility
of a tax increase next year though, are you?
A
Now, fellows, here we go again with somebody wanting me to
write the lead for them. I cited the one instance and I -- to be
honest could cite the other one, I said last week that I have said to
you that when our task force on public school education has hopefully
solved all the things with the present formula and all, if we find
then that it is true that additional funds are needed and additional
source of revenue, we certainly will come forward to the people in
the legislature and make that known. But when I say write a lead
I hope that you are not looking for me to say something that you'll
say, Governor says prospect of tax increase. I'm -- as I say, my
goal is to continue without a tax increase.
Q
Governor, you seem to be at variance with Mr. Monagan and
Mr. Post then.
A
I may be at variance with Mr. Post. I think that if you
look at Bob's remarks to you all the way he said virtually what I have
said, that there are these possibilities that could be beyond our control
but that he knew that every effort would be made not to -- to have such
a tax increase. This is quite contrary to those who are upstairs
pronouncing now that it is inevitable and you'll have to have it.
8
New subject. Attorney General Mitchell said he's given
the states until August 3 to pledge full compliance with the new
voter's rights act and he's written letters to each of the 50
governors asking them to specify the states at which they would
register young voters. How are you going to reply to that, Governor?
A
I haven't actually -- I just say that as you have seen it.
I haven't actually gotten into this. I suppose that we are going
to have to go forward. It would seem that the federal goverment is
moving foward the day, hopefully, for a test of the constitutionality
of that measure that was passed andwhich they themselves questioned.
I'm sure we will have to go forward. I signed the legislation the
other day for our young people under 18 to be allowed to circulate
petitions on their own behalf to seek to put this on the ballot.
It figures now in what has just been asked, but I'm sure we do have
to go forward. We have been handed a law. But I haven't had a
-5-
chance to even talk to anyone about it.
Q
Are you any more sympathetic to the idea of the 18 year old
vote than in the past?
A
Well, I've never disguised the fact that I lean away from
it, but I am sympathetic to the idea that I think they aught to be
allowed to go out and circulate petitions and let the people take a
crack at it on the ballot.
Q
Governor, you have been spending a good deal of time with
young people of late, the Girl's State and the Boy's State and this
afternoon Miss California.
Are you going after the 18 year old
vote just in case?
(Laughter)
A
No, no, it just happens that this is the season of the year
when Girl's State and Boy's State comes along and it is also the
season of the year which one of the nicer things that happens to you,
when along about this time every year Miss California is brought into
the capital as a visitor and we are all very happy to see her.
Q
If that 18 year old vote measure is on the ballot this
November, are you going to take a position during the campaignagainst
it?
A
I've told everybody, and particularly the young people, I
lean away from it. I'm still waiting to be convinced. I want to
hear their arguments. I'm trying to keep an open mind on it, but
I have to be frank and honest and say that so far the evidence I've had
makes me lean away from it.
Q
Does that mean that you will include it in part of your
platform, the opposition to it or you take no stand?
A
Well, as I said, I've just told you here, I am in this waiver-
ing indecisive state af mind on this, so don't try to pin me down
for an answer yet.
Q
The measure passed by the Assembly this morning, the
constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18, incl uded a
lowering of the age of the majority, leaving the drinking age the same.
With those qualifications would that make that measure more attractive
to you?
A
Well, I'm one who has always believed that you can't have
one without the full citizenship status. That the -- that if a
person is deemed qualified mature enough to vite, then that person
also should be deemed mature enough to stand trial for example, as an 1
-6-
adult in the event of law-breaking and not fall back on a juvenile
status and not having full knowledge of
right and wrong and so
forth. No, I think full citizenship has to go with it if you are
going to have the vote.
Q
Another subject.
Q
Same subject. Yes, two months ago when you spoke to the
Republican Women's Convention here in Sacramento you had one sentence
answer for that statement on the subject of 18 year old vote. You
said, "I'm against it," and that's kind of different from what you
told the Girls Staters the other day, but I was wondering if you
could clarify exactly where you stand on the issue.
A
Now, in answering questions at one meeting or the other,
if I said that, I think all of you though who have been present at
a number of meetings and Over a period of certainly the last couple
of years have heard me say repeatedly that -- that while I have taken
a position and I think I've used the expression "lean away from it"
or tend to be against it, you've also heard me say many times that
I can't say that my mind is totally made up, that I'm in opposition,
that I am willing to hear the arguments for it and I have usually,
when there's been time, explained that some of my reasons are not only
based on the age of 18 and the young people themselves, but based
on some concerns I have about what would happen to the campus, to
academic freedom and to higher education if politicians and political
parties year after year are in trying to organize the campus when
there's an election almost every year; major election every other
year and in between the years local and county elections, and so forth.
And I might have -- I might have answered a question some place and
been briefer than others, but I'm sure I did it with the confidence
that my position has been well stated on a number of occasions.
Q
Well, when you talk about keeping your mind open on this
issue does that mean you are looking for votes?
(Laughter)
Q
That's another word for the same thing.
A
No, because I said it when it wasn't an election year
also. I'm not one who believes that the young people of this country
are automatically one way or the other. I have a hunch that far
more than people realize they represent pretty much some of the same
cross-sections. No, I've made my reasons very clear about why --
why my doubts and one of them -- one of the principal ones has nothing
to do with the young people, it has to do with the campus and with
education and what happens if political parties are going into a
professor's class, demanding equal time because of something he said
in a lecture the day before. I think it is something to be reckoned
with.
2
New subject, Governor.
A
All right.
Q
You seceived, as has Mr. Unruh, numverous offers from broad-
casting stations across the state for live debate or face-to-face
debate with Mr. Unruh on the issues. Are you willing to meet Mr.
Unruh under these conditions?
A
No, I don't see any need for meeting Mr. Unruh on these
issues. I think he's been here long enough and certainly now I
must have been here in these last few years long enough that the people
must know our viewpoints and they can -- they can hear both of us
throughout the campaign, what we advocate and what we believe.
Q
Governor, on that subject, though, do you feel that public
officials have some responsibility in this country to face each other
to give the voters a choice every time they come up for election?
A
No, I think -- I think the people who run for office have
an obligation to the voters to make themselves as available as they
possible can to appear before as many voters as they possible can
by every medium, to speak as clearly and as broadly as is possible on
all their views and what they intend to do and what they advocate,
And there is no question as to where they stand, what their platform
is and this is their obligation and I don't think that -- this
depends on each individual. as to how he thinks he can do this best
and frankly I don't see any reason to share the platform with Mr.
Unruh. I find it -- I believe that I can relate to the people what
it is I stand for and what I believe in.
Q
Governor, are you saying you think the printed press is
adequate and you don't need to look for votes on the television?
A
Oh, no.
(Laughter)
A
I said by every means possible. I'm -- the electronic
media, I think, is a pretty good -- pretty good way to do it.
Q
Governor, will you be sharing the platform with Frank
Sinatra?
A
Well, now, I don't know what might be planned in the line
-8-
of fund raisers or political rallies in which, as you know, this is
a kind of standard thing in campaigning any more, that the entertain-
ment world does contribute in that way and entertains audiences at
political rallies, and so forth and Frank has expressed, as has
Dean Martin, and some others, a desire to be a part of those kind of
affairs when they take place, and so it is possible.
Q
Are you making another announcement here, Dean Martin.
Dean Martin is part of the crew?
I think you just broke Jack
MC Dowell's (phonetics) heart.
(Laughter)
A
No, I guess -- no, I guess I was just, you know -- now,
this is -- this is the old show business side coming out, I imagine
I was -- those names kind of go together like ham and eggs, and I
guess I --
0
Ham and eggs.
(Laughter)
A
No, I guess -- I was just -- I was just talking names, I
could have added a few more in there that you usually associate
when those people --
8
Dean Martin will support you this fall?
A
Pardon?
0
Will Dean Martin support you this fall?
A
I have no authority to say that though.
8
Are we off the record, Governor?
(Laughter)
SQUIRE: Any more questions?
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Yes, there is a couple back there.
Q
Governor, a two-part question. How many more of admini-
strative cutbacks on welfare, such as the two you announced during
the past week, do you have coming up and how prominently will you
use these actions in your campaign for re-election?
A
Well, first of all, how many more, there are several more.
As we have told you, we are doing our best to get a handle on this
program. If we, who are elected by the people at every echelon, from
City Councilman and County Supervisors, but mainly County Supervisors,
because that's where the welfare is administered, and here in the
state and at the national level, do not do something to balance this
program with regard to our obligation to the taxpayers as well as to
the needy, this is going to bankrupt government at every level. And
-9-
SO something has to be done. As for where it may figure in the
campaign, I've told you before, I'm going to campaign as honestly as
I can on the basis of the record of what we have done and what we are
trying to accomplish and what our goals are, and I would recite this
in what our problems have been with welfare and what we are trying
to accomplish. I am concerned right now about some of the miscon-
ceptions concerning one of the two reforms we have just announced.
There seems to be very little quarrel with the announcement about
giving the counties flexibility with regard to the number of welfare
personnel they have to employ. But by looking at the Los Angeles
Times this morning, I was aware that once again you can color some
of the Los Angeles Supervisors as Chicken Little. They are screaming
that they are not going to stand by and see the disabled die in their
beds for want of care, and anyone who looks at the program, the first
announcement that we made, knows that no one is going to lie on their
beds and die for lack of care, nor do we intend anything of the kind.
We just think that there are some corrections needed in a program
where a disabled recipient receives $169 a month and the person who's
taking care of him is paid $300 a month. Now, when I say taking care
I do not mean nursing care. Nothing in the change we made reduces
or removes nursing care, nothing will remove people from their homes.
We are talking about marginal cases where some people are being paid
for rendering no service at all, simply stealing the money. Relatives
and friends and neighbors who have been doing favors for a neighbor
disables for sometime suddenly finds out they can be paid for this
and we have put a ceiling on some in the marginal cases and making
sure the people who are able to do their own marketing or sweep their
own floor do not have an added grant, but there's been no change
whatsoever in the total basic grants which include food stamps,
special allowances, medical care, rent and nursing care. There's
been no reduction at all. And the plain truth of the matter is that
one of the objections at the county level was the fact that we would
not include in our change of regulation a mandate that the county
could not replace with county money our cutback because they frankly
stated to us they didn't want to take the heat, they would prefer
to be able to blame the state, but they did want the advantage of not
having to spend the money. Well, I think it is time if you are going
to be: hold-offish you better stand up and be counted, and they better
start being counted honestly also.
A
Yes, let's be cheerful, fine.
Q
There's quite an argument in Los Angeles with respect to
oil drilling in Pacific Palisades. I was wondering as a property
owner in that area do you have any opinion on it?
A
The Palisades is a large area. It is quite
a
way
from
us.
I've heard of it. I know that there was a hearing, I don't know
just what the views are that were presented. I think all of us
in this day and age who are concerned with the environment are
legitimately concerned about how necessary is such a thing in a
residential area, what happens to a neighborhood and to the people
who are living in that -- in that area. I recognize also that
sometimes there are needs, reasons why we have to compromise in
what we would like to see, but I really don't know the case. I
don't know whether there is that much oil there to make this a valuable
thing. I know they picked a very shaky piece of ground. I know
it is the foot of the slide.
Q
I also wonder if you favor legislation which the Ways
and Means Committee reported out to cancel the leases on the State
tidelands in Santa Barbara channel, the Unruh Bill.
A
Well, yoy know me, I don't comment until I see them when
they come down to me. I think that -- I think there have been
some proposals made and -- that would be terribly destructive to our
economy and destructive to the state itself. And here again it is
one of those areas where I think we have to be willing to accept
some compromises. The state, as you know, has a sanctuary out
to the three mile limit off Santa Barbara which we have not permitted
leases and this was -- is one of the causes of trouble, the federal
government went out in that sanctuary or beyond that sanctuary area
and permitted leases outside. But we have finally succeeded in
persuading the federal government that they should also maintain that
sanctuary and continue it on out to sea, which we think is a very
forward step. But there are some areas -- California is not self-
sufficient in oil. We are an importing state as to oil, and there
are -- there's a limit as to how far we can go in just refusing to
take advantage of some of the deposit S that we have.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
o0o
-11-
7/21
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD JULY 21, 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
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, we have some visitors here, very
welcome, glad to have, aboard. These are members of the military
assistante program under the Department of Defense. There is
Sergeant Ellis and Sergeant Dohr of McClellan Air Force Base. These
gentlemen are here under this program from virtually every corner of
the world. Glad to have you present. And there is no other opening
statement, so --
8
Governor, since last week when you said that the counties
won't have to pick up the state cutbacks in homemaker -- rather home
care programs, some of the county welfare people have bean saying that
they will have to pick up those costs in order to keep patients at
home rather than sending them to the hospitals, which would be more
expensive. In view of those findings by the counties have you
decided to review your original cutbacks?
A
No, because the entire program is still under a state of
review. Hearings have to be held on this. We announced a program
to try and cure an abuse and we announced also that we did not intend
with that program for any individual to be forced out of his home into
nursing care. We did not in any way intend to deprive anyone of care
that was absolutely necessary. We were trying to curb what had
become a runaway abuse and if welfare workers at the local level
chose to sabotage efforts of this kind to cure welfare abuses by
trying to create particular cases or force someone from their home
into a nursing home so they can make a case, it would be very difficult
to stop them. And I think it is on their conscience if they try to
do this, but we have made it very clear to the counties, we have made
it very clear to welfare, that we are seeking to cure a runaway abuse,
an advantage that's been taken of ahprogram that was well-intentioned
-1-
from the very beginning and that where was no intention to in any way
infringe upon the necessities, requirements of the truly needy and we
would not do that.
Q
Are you then going to have hearings on this program that's
not in effect, is that what I understood you to say?
A
Well, yes there have to be hearings. The hearings are
schedule,
I think, for late in August.
ED MEESE: Emergency regulations take effect, but then
the hearings follow that. It can be amended.
8
The regulations in effect now?
A
Yes, but we gave very careful instruction of what was not
to take place.
Q
Governor, do you have any idea of the extent to the abuse
to which you refer, was it 15 per cent or some figure like that, which -
A
Well, I think the people over in welfare have some because
they made the recommendations as to the amount. The thing was that
the program is being reduced back to about the level of last year.
The state's contribution then was 14 and a half. It jumped suddenly
to 24 and a half for the present year and the -- the projections for
the following year were up to as much as $50 million dollars, which
when this happens, in the past in our experiences revealed, this
usually indicates that there has been some loophole found and some
abuse of the program taking place, because there has not been a
comparable increase in the number of dependents requiring this kind
of care.
8
Regardless to the intent, though, aren't there those who
will be hurt along the way?
A
Well, any time when you have a large program involving
thousands and thousands of people, and this is one of the great
problems with the federal government trying to run things from 3,000
miles away, blanket programs tend to ignore the -- the requirements
or the needs of individuals. Now, this is the idea of getting
welfare back to the local level, where you can take into -- into
account the actual individual requirements and we intend that they
should be, and we -- we intend that no one should be hurt by this.
And when I say that, I mean that no one who actually requires some-
thing should be deprived. The bulk of the -- of the help that is
being given in this program is between -- well, about a one -- a
-2-
$50 level or the most about a hundred -- about 50 to a hundred dollar
is the bulk of the care. This would not be affected by any of the
changes at all other than careful screening of whether the actual
fifty or a hundred dollars is being used for the purpose intended
and is needed. As I said before, if someone wants to sabotage the
bureaucratic level, wants to say, well, we will prove this can't work
by just simply applying it in such a way that we -- we don't show any
regard, then they can. As a matter of fact, there is a little bit of
that going on already with the campaign against this. The panicky
getting of people who are on welfare or who are on these aid programs
and putting them on certain news programs and interviewing them and
frightening them into the belief that they are going to be deprived
when there is no evidence whatsoever, that some of those individuals
are going to be deprived or in any way affected under the reform of this
program. We again are trying to curb an abuse. We did not caneel
the program. We cut back on what is a known, on the basis of evidence,
abuse of the program and if we are not allowed to do this in welfare,
if we cannot begin to get a handle on the abuses of welfare, then all
of you better be prepared to dig down in your pockets pretty deep
because it is going to go beyond all bounds of our ability to afford
it.
Q
Do you have any evidence, Governor, that social workers
are abusing us by loading the program up with cases that don't belong
there?
A
I couldn't tell you that from firsthand knowledge, I only
know that in talking to local government representatives, talking to
county Supervisors, oh, in many instances they complain that the
welfare workers have in a sense been out -- not only in this, but
in other programs proselyting to find every way and every avenue whereb]
someone can be placed on additional programs and I think this was
evidenced in the stories that came out from so many counties just a
few weeks ago about the numbers of welfare workers and government
employees as well as others, who are full-time employees and also
receiving welfare grants by way of the technical loopholes that exist
in this -- in this program.
Q
Governor, in view of the state's fiscal condition, do you
think it is advisable at this time to pass legislation, as the Senate
did yesterday, which would give accountants and chiropractors special
-3-
income tax privileges by allowing them to form professional corpora-
tions?
A
Oh, I haven't had a chance to go into what they passed
yesterday. I think if -- and I stand to be corrected, if I'm
wrong. in this, I think what we are talking about is the right of
individuals to incorporate as doctors have in clinics and thus have
the advantage of being taxed as a corporation instead of as individuals.
and if there is an inconsistency between one classification,
profressionals and another, then that inconsistency should be
corrected.
Q
This would result in a loss of about 1.6 million dollars
to the state in the first year.
A
Well, see, I have to go along with this, that whatever is
called a loss to the state, if the money -- the state is getting
is based on an inequity to the taxpayers, then the state has to bear
that loss, because the state has no right to be gaining money, tax
revenues by personalizing one group of taxpayers as against another.
Q
Governor, yesterday there was a Senator came in with a group
of people in wheel chairs and they all claim that those are getting
a $300 allowance from care, particularly those badly crippled are
going to be cut in half, won't be able to take care of themselves.
Now what about that?
A
Well, in an effort to get at this program it is true that
one of the points raised was to change the ceiling in that partigular
program from $300 to $150. But I have to wonder in the interpretation
of this if some of these people aren't confused again between nursing
care and just simply the attendant care or outside care of people
coming in to do household chores or marketing or run errands and so
forth, and if it is -- if it is indeed involving personal care of a
nursing nature then there are other programs to provide that. And
there is no intentinn to cut those.
Q
Governor, I want to talk about the tax program a bit. It
is scheduled now for debate, at least, and probably a vote in the
Senate on Thursday. Last week you indicated that you wanted some
public support to get the Senators on the ball on this thing. Have
you counted noses or anything at this point? Are you confident at
this point anything in the Senate --
A
I continue to be optimistic, I just find that -- it hard
-4-
to envision how a Senator can go back to his district, particularly
those who are up for election, and explain to the constituents how
they voted against this tax relief for the home owner. And face
them on this in view of all the evidence we have that the -- that
the home owners are virtually to the point of tax rebellion with regard
to property tax. So I continue to believe that while it is very
possible that the -- and I think the evidence indicates that roughly
the same group of Senators who blocked the budget are mobilized
against this program. It may be the end result would be the same
as it was with the budget.
Q
Governor, oh --
8
Governor, Senator Schrade has been pro tem not/ for nearly
six months. How are you getting along with him?
A
Just fine. And I must say his leadership during the
several dark days of the budget battle was outstanding and I'm grateful
to him fo r the cooperation that we had.
8
There are a number of bills pending in both houses of the
legislature that would -- constitutional amendments as well, that
would divert gas tax from the state highway fund to rapid transit
and there have even been suggestions it would go for education, but
it is diversion nonetheless. How do you stand on the general subject
of gas tax diversion?
A
Well, Jack, let me divide that. If we are talking about
programs that actually have to do with the automobile bser that
still come within the framework of this being a service tax assessed
against the user; smog, for example, I believe the automobile caused
the smog, therefore it is fair that the automobile use should contribute
to the research and to the battle against smog. With regard to
rapid transit, I have always felt that that program really belongs
in the hands of the peop/e at the local level where the rapid transit
district would be created. If they are talking about a diversion of
their own highway funds for that purpose within their district, the
local share of highway funds, I could be persuaded to that. On the
broader scene, if you are asking my position with regard to simply
opening up the gasoline tax as a source of revenue for the running of
government, I am opposed. I think it is a fine tax in the sense of
a service charge against the user and I would be opposed to simply
treating it as a source of revenue and a grab bag for everybody to get
into for their particular program. It still isn't sufficient for us
was created some years before I got here, and which is way behind
schedule because of inflation and increasing costs or maybe because
of over-optimistic estimates in the beginning. We do know that
every mile of modern expressway or freeway that we build we can
actually count the number of lives per mile that are saved because
of the reduced accident rate and fatality rate on those freeways.
8
Governor, Attorney General Mitchell indicated that he was
going to write to the Governors, all the Governors, ask them how they
Voter Rights Act,
intended
to
implement
the
federal
have you formulated an
answer to that letter?
A
We received the letter.
I have to tell you on this one you
are going to have to wait a while. We haven't -- we haven't been
able to get into this or give any attention to it at all as to what
we are going to do. I'm -- I'm one who believes that the statute
passed in Congress is unconstitutional. I think that the voting
qualifications properly belong in the hands of the state.
8
You might take some action then that would force the
matter into the courts in California?
A
As I say, we haven't had a chance to sit down and go into
this and I'm a layman, not a lawyer, so I may have shocked some of
the lawyers on the staff already with my statement I have just made.
8
Governor, the Controller's preliminary annual report came
out and it shows over-all about 182 -- $185 million dollar increase
in collections, and the only area where there was down in the
collections was Bank and Corporations and cigarette sales tax. Is
$185 million dollars too small of an increase to run the state or
where does that reflect in a recession in the state that causes the
$145 million deficit?
A
Well, now, wait a minute, are you talking about a projection
or upon the figures --
Q
His preliminary report, annual report, receipts and --
everything was up.
A
No, we are talking --
8
The sales tax.
A
We are talking about the Controller's cash balance that he
just gave us, weren't we, on the cash balance for the year that we
have been in?
Q
Gross receipts, not a cash balance.
-6-
ED MEESE: No, that is the cash report.
A
That's the cash balance. This really has nothing to do
with whether we are deficit plas or minus.
Q
I was referring everything was up except banks and corpora-
tions, how does this reflect a bad recession? There is still an
increase in the collection of taxes.
A
Well, aren't you comparing what is true of the year we
have just gone through and what is the prediction for the revenues
in the year ahead? Well, maybe I'm confused, but if we are talking
about the Controller's report, the Controller has just issued a
report, as he explained to me, that he was going to, that he was --
was issuing a cash balance report on -- as of June 30, -- July 1,
the amount of cash that had come in as against the cash outflow and
there was a difference, but this is not the balance of whether there
is a surplus or deficit in the state. That won't be known until
November because all the cash isn't in.
Q
I crossed over that, I didn't mean to go into --
I'm just saying that personal income tax and the sales tax, cash
receipts is still up. There is an increase from last year.
A
Oh, I think that's true. The question is whether the
increase is up to the amount of increase that you base your projections
on. We normally expect our tax revenues, normal growth in the economy
to be reflected in anywhere from a six to an eight per cent increase
each year. Now, it is my understanding that the report that we
would be $70 million dollars off in our projections from the projection
made last December was that the increase -- there would still be an
increase, but it would be $70 million dollars less than the increase
that we had normally anticipated in December because in the interim
had come this economic slump.
Q
Another subject, Governor, a couple weeks ago you indicated
you needed some time to decide what you intend to do about the loss
of Kay Valory. Have you made up your mind about that yet?
A
No, Kay Valory has been a valued member of this staff and
I hope that we can retain her in government and intend to. We --
the re-organization with regard to the whole consumer affairs thing
is apart from that. That's a part of our reorganization of the
executive branch.
Q
Governor, another subject. The State Senate last week
-7-
passed a bill which would give legislative employees much greater
pension benefits than other state employees atdan estimated cost
of about one million dollars a year. TWO years ago you vetoed
a
similar
bill.
Is your position still the wame towards such
legislation?
A
Well, I haven't had a chance to take a look at this and see
if they have done anything different. I think the one I vetoed a coup]
of years ago was restricted to a much narrower group of employees,
if I remember correctly. I don't think I've ever faced one that took
care of the entire legislative employees staff, I think they had a
small narrow group in mind.
Q
Governor, the same thing, the Senate passed a bill this
morning, Assemblyman Ryan's teacher reform bill, and has some of
the recommendations from your reform commission in it. I'm wondering
whether you are looking favorably on that.
A
Well, let me say that I vetoed with -- because of some
provisions of the bill the other one and told Ryan that I was very
much in favor of that -- the goal of the bill of removing school
administrators from the necessity of having teacher credentials.
I'm still in favor of removing that necessity, but it is my -- all
that I've heard so far is that that bill has undergone a great many
amendments and on its way down, and I frankly haven't had a chance
to get into the whole bill and see if it contains the same things I
objected to last year or whether they have been changed.
Q
Governor, back on the tax bill, you said that you -- there
may be the same problem with the same Benators that you had on the
budget but this time you don't have the lever of the deadline.
What are you willing to -- what are you planning or intend to do in
order to get that tax program passed if those Senators hold out?
Are you going to talk to them, are you going to threaten, are you
going to promise, have you yet or what?
A
Just be my most persuasive self. figure that they are
not totally without a deadline. I think there is a kind of a built-
in itch to get home upstairs and every day that goes by the itch
gets greater.
Q
You haven't been up there lately.
(Laughter)
A
No, I only go by what they say when they come downstairs.
-8-
Q
On
another subject. The University of California.
Can
was
you tell us why/Professor of Physiology Hardin P. Jones given a raise?
A
Yes, there were two changes in the submission of over-
scale raises that came in. This list was submitted a month ago and
some questions were raised about some of the overscale approvals
there. This approval is in the hands of the Regents, must be approved
by them. The list was taken back by the President of the University
at his request for a review and some changes were made that -- that
he made in the entire list, that came back in and one of the newer
members of the Board, Dr. Lawrence, himself. a Professor at Berkeley,
raised some questions and presented some evidence regarding the work
that was being done by Dr. Jones and one other Professor and upon the
basis, upon the testimony that he gave as to what they were doing and
this man had been in his particular department, his recommendation
was accepted by the Board.
Q
Governor, can you tell us whether some of that evidence
had to do with Mr. Jones' speeches on anti-drug use?
A
No, this had to do with the work load he's carrying, the
research that he's been doing and one of theindividuals, it was
pointed out by the president, that one of the individuals was a
professor at large and therefore he didn't actually have a department
or a Chancellor plugging for him like so many others have, and this
was why he had been lower than Dr. Lawrence thought he should have
been on the first time a month ago. And Dr. Lawrence did present
just the factual evidence as to the load they are carrying, the
teaching load, the research that's being done, their record, point
of service and the Regents just thought that it warranted the raise.
8
Governor, a couple more questions around here.
8
Governor, the Anti-Vietnam bill is up before the Ways and
Means Committee. What is your view on that?
A
What?
Q
The Anti-Vietnam Bill by Vasconcellos.
A
Oh, this is the bill that Californians shouldn't go.
I've answered that before, my position is -- it's been declared
unconstitutional already by the one state that passed it, Massachusetts
The Supreme Court overruled them and I for once agree with the Supreme
Court decision. I think that the obligation of the federal government
-9-
the responsibility is the protection of the nation and I don't think
that the states should be involved in deciding whether they would aid
in the defense of the nation or not.
8
Would you veto it if it should pass?
A
Well, you know, you keep wanting me to violate my rule about
saying I would veto or not veto. Let me just tell you that I don't
believe a state should be telling the federal government it is going
to keep its young men from serving in the defense of the nation.
Q
Governor, regarding the university question. Could you
more specifically address yourself to the complaints that the Regents
showed a political bias by holding up the promotions of two liberal
Professors and granting pay increases to two conservative Professors?
A
I would be delighted to answer that because the stories
that have been carried came evidently by way of someone who went out
of an executive meeting and in violation of what I think is ethical
conduct in an executive meeting relayed their version of what had
taken place in the meeting. There were two professors -- here again
this is a right of the Regents and a responsibility that appointments
to tenure must be approved by the Regents, and if a Regent and the
approval comes not so much in us voting to approve as it comes in and
says that appointments to lifetime tenure, that if a Regent has
questions and wants more information or questions or challenges the
appointment that the University then will provide this or then it
will come to a vote and the case will be made. In this instance
there was no blocking. What happened was two members of the Board
of Regents, both incidentally who aren't professors by profession,
asked for additional information on the academic qualifications.
There was no issue raised by them or any other Regent as to the
political views or outside conduct of these two individuals. The
only mention of this came from a member of the Board of Regents oppos-
ing these -- the questioning who challenged that he felt this was what
it was about, and both Regents made it very plain that they wanted
no information of that kind, they were asking merely for additional
academic qualifications, and the administration of the University
said that that information they would provide for the next meeting.
Q
Well, is it just a coincidence then that these two faculty
members were active in liberal-radical causes?
-10-
A
Well, I would have to say it is a coincidence. One of
them his name seemed familiar to me in association with some of the
causes. The other one I never even heard of him, and I'm sure this
was true of many of the Regents present and it isn't anything that
requires a vote, it simply required Regents who had questions raising
their questions and the questions were with regard to the academic
qualifications.
0
Governor, who is the Regent who -- who you say disclosed
these arguments?
A
Well, now, if I -- I've already said a lot of what went
on in an executive session. I'd just rather not be in the same
category as the Regents that keep running out of those meetings to
the press and revealing what goes on. The purpose of an executive
meeting is not to protect the Regents, it is to protect the individuals
discussed by the Regents and this is being violated. And violated by
someone on the Board of Regents and I'm not going to join them, so I
can just say there was a regent who questioned these other two Regents
if this was the reason for their objection. They made it very plain
that was not and I'm not going to reveal his name.
Q
Governor, I understand a manufacturer is coming out with
a Ronald Reagan wristwatch. I wonder what your reaction is.
(Laughter)
A
Well, I figure it was inevitable. I doubt if it will
catch on. I think it is probably a fad that's already run its way
and I'm not going to take a poll and find out how many buy them.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: You bet.
060
-11-
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD JULY 28, 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.)
SQUIRE:
Have you got an opening statement?
GOVERNOR REAGAN:
No opening statement.
Q
Governor Reagan --
Q
Governor, you and the Lieutenant Governor Reinecke have said
that on the cutback in the attendant care program that you had
informed the counties that there could be exceptions to the new $150
ceiling if situations warranted it. Santa
Clara
County
sais
they can't find anywhere any written or oral communication from the
state saying that and they said there is nothing in these regulations
that went out.
A
It was not said in the sense of that actual exception.
What we said was that nothing in the changed regulation should be
used to remove anyone from their home into a nursing home or into --
into any kind of an institution. And I would think that this would
mean that when you got to that ceiling, you had a conflict there
in which it would have been logical for them to say what do we do in
the event that a cut in the ceiling would force this person out of his
home, then I think they -- that no one ever bothered to inquire of
us.
No one ever bothered to ask what do we do. Ray?
Q
Governor, a report out of Washington yesterday says that
a study in California --
Q
Excuse me, I'd like to -- on welfare.
0
This is.
8
O. K.
Q
--
welfare. -- that 22 cases out of 260 studied in Cali-
fornia showed nursing homes billing sometimes up to ninety days
after a person had died, double and triple billing, and things of this
kind.
Are you aware of this report and what is the situation?
-1-
A
Yes, and some of the cases that they are talking about
go back as much as two years. This has been a problem we have
talked about before and we have been working with this problem of
trying to clear up the billing process and avoid errors. We are
going to computers, as you know, and already the computerizing of
welfare or Medi-Cal billing has resulted in what runs to millions of
dollars a month in savings in -- in detecting errors. I notice the
report also said that in some of those instances even the nursing homes
were unaware of the error and in some instances nursing homes them-
selves had found the error and corrected it. And this is an omgoing
problem and I think you'll -- you'll find if you check it that it --
that some of what they found, as I say, goes back as much as two years
and has long since been corrected.
Q
Is there any indication of outright fraud?
A
Ray, I --- I would hesitate to stand here and say that
there's been no case of cheating in Medi-Cal, or in any one of the
social welfare programs. But I also would tell you that at this
moment I haven't spoken to them about, well, what do we find in
deliberate fraud or not. I know there is - - there's been a long and
unending struggle since we have been here. I remember when we came
here Medi-Cal was in its first year, just a brand new program, but to
intercept and correct those abuses where sometimes the recipient and
sometimes the purveyor of the service or drug has attempted to cheat.
But I think we have got that pretty well corraled also. Our biggest
problem there is just the same as it is in every other welfare program.
It is the legal abuse that can come about through taking advantage
of technicalities and loopholes in the exising regulations.
8
Excuse me. Yes, Governor. You said a minute ago that
you did not tell the counties in the regulations that they could make
exceptions to the $300 maximum, if that's what I believe we were talking
about, in the attendant care program to the $150 maximum, that you said
there could be exceptions so as to keep a person in his home. You
said this was not -- that statement was not made in the regulations.
A
I
don't recall. AsI recall it, I don't think there was
anything we said specifically that if this ceiling -- the change of
ceiling interferes, but we felt and I was confident that in the explain-
ing that under no circumstances was anyone to be moved from his home
because of his change in regulation or nursing home, that would be
-2-
pretty apparent, that whatever in the regulation ran into conflict
with that, that it would be apparent we meant selectivity. We meant
exceptions.
8
In a letter to the Board of Supervisors announcing them, you
said the regulations which are now being mailed to county welfare
directors also will enable counties to operate the program within the
reduced allocation without forcing any recipient into out-of-home care
but apparently the counties say or some of the ones -- people I have
spoken with say there is nothing in the regulations that does allow
them to do that.
A
I said, I think, the other day in my statement, what I
explained was welfare workers who show a great versatility in their
ability to loosely interpret the regulations that they have -- or
to interpret them strictly and I made the charge the other day, and I
stand by the charge, they make no effort to do anything except go by
the letter of the regulation in spite of all of the public statements
and the written statements that we have sent with regard to what the
intent or spirit was of this. Now, since that time, at least one
paper here in the community that was more concerned with fact than
with emotionalism had cited, quoting welfare workers at the county
level, a number of violations of the type of thing we were talking
about. The type, for example, of a young man from a well-off family
who is incapacitated and going to college and his mother is being
paid a hundred dollars a month to take care of him and yet he is able
to go to college and there are a number of other instances of that
kind. As far as I can determine, no effort was made whatsoever to
find that kind of case and to recognize this is what we were trying
to get at.
Q
Governor, has there been any effort made to stop such a
sloppy regulation again in your administration?
A
Well, this was -- I told you the other day, before we do
this again the regulation is going to say -- is not going to offer that
same opportunity when we know that there is a tendency on the part of
those people to interpret contrary to what it is we are trying to
accomplish. I think you only need to refer back to the fact that
the same welfare workers are just as upset about our giving elasticity
to the counties with regard to how many welfare workers they have to
hire or what proportion of supervisors they have to have. They are
-3-
just as enraged about that. In other words, they seem to be enraged
about anything that is going to reduce the overhead in distributing
the welfare dollars. And we are just as determined that we are going
to find some way to make sure that we can continue to deliver the
services or even improve them to those people who truly have need
where at the moment we are being spread so thin with people who neither
need it nor deserve it that we are coming to the day when we are not
going to be able to provide adequate care for those who must have it.
8
Governor, your fear of sabotage by local welfare workers,
does that extend to anybody, you think, in the State Department of
Social Welfare who helped write that regulation didn't have your best
interests in mind?
(Laughter)
A
Let me say, I would not throw up my hands and fall over
backward in surprise if that too developed.
Q
Governor, Robert Anderson of the Social Services Union
said that he felt that the press coverage had done your whole effort
in.
Do you feel that way about it? The playing on sob sister type
stories.
A
No, the thing that did us in is when I discovered that there
was no way that I could join the fight with them and guarantee
protection to the truly handicapped who needed this help. That
in other words by their willingness to use those people as pawns there
was no way that I could stand here and guarantee to those helpless
people that protection against this in a state the size of this one and
what was going on. And it was evident that they were victimizing
as I told you the other day in here. When a case arrived so close
to home that I was personally acquainted with people who had received
the telephone call, then I think in conscience I only had one thing
to do. I had to back away until I could find a way to correct the
abuses and protect at the same time the handicapped.
8
Governor, you indicated that none of the counties had
bothered to get in touch with the state and find out whether or not
it was the intention Los Angeles County people claim they did
attempt to get in touch with the state and ask for clarification.
They didn't get any cooperation.
A
I don't know who they tried to call or who they were in
touch with, but we preceded this by meetings with county Supervisors
and the County Supervisors' Association. They knew the intent and
-4-
they knew what we were trying to correct.
Q
They knew in advance of the announcement?
A
That's right.
Q
Change of subject, Governor.
A
All right.
Q
The first round has gone through on the Senate floor on
your tax reform package.
A
Yes.
Q
The numbers look pretty darn close. What do you think
is going to happen now and what are you going to do besides just
be your normal natural self in convincing some Senators how to vote?
A
I shall sit persuasively in the corner office until it
passes. I'm optimistic that we are still going to get it because
ti is a good tax bill and some of the Mickey Mouse attempts to make
changes have revealed that most people can find either side of the
aisle, can find little fault and I'm greatly gratifying by what seems
to be a good solid bi-partisan approach to this. There are people
up there on both sides of the aisle who aren't playing politics.
8
Are you saying we are going to get the tax package as it
exists right now or no tax package at all?
A
Well, I know that there are a number of changes, some minor,
some major. I couldn't swear that there won't be some minor ones.
I don't know that we are going to bat a hundred per cent. I would
like to see it go through as it is. I think in all the long months and
all last summer before the session took place, when we were working
with the legislative leadership on this, I think we anticipated most
loopholes and did a pretty good job of putting forth a sound program.
Q
You said before that you compromised enough on this tax
reform program. You mean by what you said you are not going to make
any more major compromises in this package?
A
Well, some of the major compromises, such as the amendments
that were proposed and defeated yesterday, I'm sorry, I think that
they so subverted and destroyed the program I just couldn't have
accepted it with that kind of change.
Q
What will you offer Democratic Senators for their support?
A
Just the knowledge that they will be able to go back to
their constituents and say "we defended the people of California."
We don't make deals. I haven't bought a vote up here yet and nor
have I tried and I'm not going to start.
-5-
Q
Governor, on that, there were rumors around when your budget
passed that some Senators got judgeships for themselves or for elders
or acquaintances. Could you comment on that?
A
Yes, I can comment. That, too, is totally false. I
heard the rumors when they went around. I think the cave-in and the
decision to pass the budget led to this to this thought. No,
there was no such thing, there was no deal. We just simply said
this budget has to be passed. We had accepted the budget without
change that was as it came out of the Conference Committee. I
announced -- the only thing I did was send the word upstairs, which
I thought they should know, that the budget they were talking about
and debating was the budget that I would sign, that I saw no need in
my study of it to do any blue-penciling. There was no deal made
whatsoever of any kind.
a
Governor, the Democrats in proposing their amendments seem
to give the impression they felt that they were doing what they
believed was right for their constituents. Do you mean intend to
call their efforts Mickey Mouse?
A
No, I -- I used the word "some", I think. I hope the
transcript will show that, that some amendments. No, I'm sure
there are people up there with and on both sides of the aisle.
There are Republicans who have had changes that they would like to
see and amendments and they believe in them very much and so do some
of the Democrats. On the other hand, I think there have been some
just sheer obstructionist type of amendments that would have literally
turned the purpose of the bill around even. Even some at times that
were discussed that would have made it a tax increase rather than just
a tax reform.
Q
Governor, change of subject?
A
All right.
Q
Have you planned any investigation or have you made any
inquiry into the conditions at Solidad prison at all, the tensions
that apparently exist there?
A
Oh, we have had yes, we have had cabinet meetings on this
and with the people from the Department of Corrections. We know that
this is a great problem. What is happening and what you are seeing
reflected inside the institutions is a reflection of what is taking
place outside. The great increase in violence and violent crime is
-6-
reflected because these type of people are the ones who are now
coming into these institutions and presents a very real problem.
There is no question about it, the nature of the jobs of the men
inside is -- I can't say different than what it was in the past, but
the degree of risk and tension is greater.
Q
Is this a black and white -- black versus white conflict
that exists in Solidad, and if so, how do you overcome that in insti-
tutions?
A
Well, this is not -- this might be involved in the last
issue of what has taken place there, but this is not new. This
has been happening and again is a reflection of what's taking place
outside the prisons. This has been going on and there's been an
increase in tension in that line in a number of institutions, not
only in California, but across the country, but I think basically
you have to face that with or without that you have a -- you have an
increased problem because of just the greater increased proportion of--
of violence. Violence outside. You add one other factor to this,
too. The percentage of that kind of individual inside the institu-
tion is greater because of our subsidizing of probation. As you
recall, we have a program now where we underwrite or subsidize to
local government their taking, particularly first offenders, and
keeping them on probation instead of putting them into institutions
and it's been very successful. But in so doing you have thinned
out and left a higher proportion of the truly violent while the first
offenders, the less violent, the ones who always. kind of gave you
some stability and order in those institutions are out on probation.
Q
Governor, another subject. The Senate killed a $750,000
mansion bill yesterday. Do you have any comment on that?
A
They did? Well, as I told you the other day, I wasn't going
to spend the money right away in the condition that we are in now.
But I think it is sort of -- I don't know what basis they killed it on,
if they did. But it -- it is just a pattern of the last thirty-two
years and I still say it is a disgrace and some day maybe they will
quit playing politics. In the meantime maybe we should go back to
the original plan and let the people of California do what a great
many of them have shown they are willing to do and present it to the
state instead of relying on the --
Q
Governor, will you propose the $750,000 in your' budget bext
-7-
year if you are re-elected?
A
Well, that's going to have to depend on what the budget
condition is or what the financial condition is of this state.
Obviously, that like anything else would have to take its place in
the priority.
Q
Governor, are you calling this partisan politics? The
bill was sponsored by a Democrat.
A
I beg your pardon?
8
You said they are playing politics. The bill was sponsored
by a Democrat.
A
No, I guess that was you know, blood bath, that was a
figure of speech. I don't think it was partisan because I've been
assured by some Democrats that they have believed for a long time
that we should have resolved this issue years ago. No, it wouldn't
be partisan in any sanse.
Q
Governor, if that new mansion were built downtown, would you
want to live in it?
A
Frankly, no. We had that experience once. I learned
to hate the sound of trucks shifting gears. I think if anyone
would stop to think about it, they'd realize that this is a residence
and in the increasing youthfulness of our population, I'm sure the
odds are that in days to come there are going to be Governors of
California you are building something for a hundred years -- that
there are going to be Governors who have small children and you take
a look and you say, "Well, what do you do with a family of that kind?"
The kids come home from school and what do they do, go out and count
the cars going by or who do they play with, what kind of a neighborhood
do they live in? The lot that they have picked out over here, I
think you'd have to put a roof over the place, also, because there
is a high rise apartment building next door, they could sell tickets.
(Laughter)
Q
Governor --
Q
Governor, you said that pardon me, that you had met
with Supervisors before announcing the welfare cuts. Some of the
welfare people have complained they did not get any notices of cuts
before the time of the announcement publicly. Could you tell us
when you met with the Supervisors?
A
Well, our people were meeting with them -- not me, our
people were meeting with them on this for quite some period of time
-8-
and if there is a the of communication there then that ought to be
straightened out at the county level.
Q
They were notified how long in advance, do you think?
PAUL BECK: Warren, I think -- I guess about two weeks.
Q
Excuse me, on that point, two weeks before that you signed the
budget bill. Why didn't you just take the ten million dollars out-
right then and announce the regulations then?
A
Well, because we were probably still talking to them, but
also because I said upstairs that we wouldn't -- we wouldn't blue-
pencil the budget bill.
a
Governor, I apologize for belaboring this subject, but I
want to make sure I understand. On the -- if there was an exception
allowed to that new $150 ceiling wouldn't it have had to be stated
in the Executive order? How could the connties approve an exception
if it wasn't in the law?
welfare
A
Excuse me, it isn't a law, it is a regulation, administrative
change.
Q
Secondly, who would pay for the extra money above the $150,
the state or the county?
A
Well, I think that program, you'll find, was a three-way --
this is why we warned them about their own expenditure. There is
federal sharing in this and there is county sharing, so that we always
talk to you and to the public in terms of the dollar that's a saving
statewise, ever since our first several months up here in trying
to explain Medi-Cal in terms of total cost as against the state
savings, and so finally I think some of youdwereeready to stab me
over is it $800 million or $200 million dollars, and we were being
honest at every time, but we have since then tried to talk in what is
the state cost. But every time we save a dollar in state cost you
have to add on and say we are really saving two and a half to three
dollars because there are the matching dollars. The county is thus
relieved of a -- of a matching sum and the federal government is
relieved of a matching dollar.
Q
Well, back to the question, Governor, how could they make
an exception if it wasn't in the regulation, though?
A
Well, I admitted in my statement the other day that it was
possible the wording of the regulation -- you've had some questions
about that here today, why the regulation was worded in that way.
I went on the explanation and the surrounding language that we had
informed them. But it doesn't seem to me that it is too far fetched
-9-
right now by a liberal interpretation of welfare regulations, we
have just discovered at least one publication's revealing the increas-
ing numbers of college students who are going to college on welfare.
They have just discovered that there are loopholes that with a liberal
interpretation they can get money if their fathers and mothers aren't
sending them enough money to go to school on welfare. Now, by this
same thing, if I -- when we put a ceiling but announce that that
ceiling must not be imposed if it is to bring about a change in the --
in the residence of the individual, it seems to me common sense that
someone would assume that we are agreeing there can be exceptions.
8
Are you going to try --
Q
Governor, why does this liberal interpretation on welfare
laws upset you and we don't hear a similar degree of distress about
liberal interpretation of tax laws and open space subsidies and
those sort of things which -- from which wealthy people prosper? We
hear it all the time about welfare workers. We don't hear coinciding
figures on the other.
A
Well, your question is asked, I think, based on a false
premise. I think -- I don't think that there is any liberalizing
or conservative interpretation of what is a legitimate deduction or
what is a legitimate protection in -- say in open space, the
Williamson Act. I think it is very explicit that a person can sign
an agreement and get a reduction in his property tax. And the state
in turn under our proposal is going to reimburse the county for the
lost revenue. Now, I doubt that the wealthy are being subsidized
to the extent that it makes this a scandal and if so I'd be the first
to stand in line and say let's plug it. But what you are talking
about is a welfare situation that I don't believe any fair person
can deny has gotten out of hand nationwide. The federal government
is trying to solve it because they know it is out of hand. As we, who
several years ahead we can have projections that show. that the tax
structure of California admittedly the highest in-the nation, cannot
possibly afford what is going on. San Diego County, for example,
their budget for welfare is now greater than the total county budget
was just a fewyears ago, and it is increasing this year. There are
239,000 more people on welfare. When I talk about liberal interpre-
tation I'm talking about such examples as a professional man and his
wife who can put their children in a boarding home for care while they
take a vacation and the taxpayers pay the bill for that. I'm talking
about the example I gave you a little earlier, I'm talking about anywhere
from ten to fourteen thousand dollars a year, government employees
as well as private industry employees who have found that through the
legal loopholes that they discovered in the law they can put themselves
on welfare in addition to getting these salaries. And I'm only
saying to you that not only must there be some fairness with regard
to the taxpayers who are -- who are bearing this burden, but we are
reaching the point in which we will be able and can point to cases of
real need that are not getting what they should have.
Q
Well, no, I'm -- that certainly you are to be commended
for attacking that problem. I just wondered why there isn't a similar
degree of industry on the other end of the scale, because that's
costing taxpayers money, too.
A
Well, I think there is, but are you talking about -- are
you talking about an abuse of an existing program or are you talking
about changes in the tax structure such as : restricting someone's
charttable contributions because you think that that is a tax out.
8
Oh, I don't know --
A
Depreciation.
Q
Senator Danielson yesterday pointed out a whole flock of
farmers who take advantage of the Williamson Act, like Standard Oil
Company and J. Paul Getty and other farmers like that, who get tax
breaks and he questioned whether they really needed those tax breaks.
A
Well, all right, whether they need them or not, is it a
tax break to take someone who is -- we have the reverse of that.
We have the man who wants to remain a farmer but because suddenly a
farmer three miles away has -- and I've been through this and had to
give up a ranch because of it -- we have a farmer three miles away
sells his land for a subdivision and suddenly this farmer has to pay
a tax on the potential value of his farm as a subdivision sometime
in the future rather than on the ability of that land to earn as a
farm. And the Williamson Act admittedly doesn't go an awful long
way on this, but it makes some break for the man who is willing to
say, "I intend to farm this," and every year he signs for ten years
ahead that he's not going to make this a subdivision and that he
intends to keep it at its present use.
Q
Governor, do you have any evidence that any social workers
were not enforcing the regulations on the abuses -- the new regulations
that you had proposed July 9th, on the abuses on the cases involing
abuse? That is, were they just enforcing the regulations on the end
-11-
of the scale where people would be hurt and not enforcing them on the
other end or do you feel that their enforcement was level across the
whole range of regulations?
A
I have no evidence the other way.
I have no evidence
that there was any effort made to comply with the intent and to simply
eliminate those abuses. I know of no such case. I know of countless
cases that all of you held up to view and understandably so, it was
quite emotional of the truly handicapped, the very ones that we
wanted no change in their status, that they were going to have a change
in their status.
Q
What would you have done if you found some welfare worker
said well, he really didn't mean it in the regulation and kept
paying the $300 instead of cutting it back to $150? What would you
have done to some welfare worker if you found that to be indicated?
A
Well, frankly I would have thought -- frankly I would have
thought that he was complying with exactly what we said he should do.
8
Governor, there are reports of a planned meeting last night
with you, President Nixon and Senator Murphy. Did that come about?
A
Yes, it was a very lovely social evening.
Q
Did you discuss --
A
Nancy and I and George Murphy dined with the President and
Mrs. Nixon and Dr. Kissinger.
Q
Did you discuss the federal welfare regulations you've been
so critical of?
A
Yes, we had a little opportunity before dinner which was
social, with a few others. of the White House staff, who were present,
and I had a chance to explain our criticisms of that, and they were
quite interested. They were also quite surprised to learn some of
the ways in which welfare is being misinterpreted at the local level.
Q
You think somethingwill come out of this particular meeting?
In that area?
A
I sure hope SO.
Q
Governor, did you or Senator Murphy ask the President to
speak in either of your behalf yere in California in the coming elec-
tion?
A
Subject never came up.
Q
Do you expect that he will come into California and campaign?
You are constituents.
He's a constituent of yours.
-12-
A
I don't know, I've read -- I've read some accounts that
he is trying to avoia campaigning at all in this election, but it --
it never came up.
Q
Do you feel at all responsible in any way, Governor, for some
of the confusion of the welfare regulation?
A
Well, as I told you the other day, I suppose I was a little
naive. I should have anticipated the kind of thing that happened,
and if there is a responsibility, perhaps it is in my not being more
careful about the regulation itself, but then as I say, not antici-
pating that anyone would do what they did I just assumed that our
language was -- our intent was so clear that there wouldn't be that
kind of violation.
D
Governor, another subject. What kind of conversation did
you or your staff have with Assembly Republicans over the Unruh bill
to prohibit further oil drilling in Santa Barbara channel? Unruh is
blaming you for arm-twisting Republicans, saying that it is you now
who must bear the responsibility for, as he put it, besmirching the
beaches and befouling the water.
A
Well, he who goes barefoot should be careful about throwing
thorns.
(Laughter)
Q
What -
A
It seems to me Mr. Unruh is reaching a long way. First
of all, I didn't talk to anybody about his bill. It was up before
the Legislature, it was defeated by one vote, and the one vote that
could have been the difference was Mr. Unruh's and as usual he was
not present. I would suggest that if he has something he feels
strongly about again he ought to be present when it comes to a vote
on the floor.
Q
Governor, your reorganization plans, too, have had quite a
bit of problem in the Senate. One of the complaints of your opposi-
tion is that you are not following through as you said, you are still
overlaying and overlapping government. You are not streamlining.
Why not?
A
Well, I don't know what some of the objections are. I
know some people have legitimateobjections to some of these. It is
the prerogative of the Executive Branch, has always been considered
so, to do what it thinks is necessary. On the other hand, the
legislature does have the right to object if they find something in
there that they believe goes too far. My quarrel yesterday with
their coming on the floor was that they were not actually being treated
as individual programs. They were simply lumped together, and I think
that each reorganization program should be treated separately, but
all I said to some of our own people was let's take a little more
time, let's sit down with you and see if we can iron out these diffi-
culties. I call to your attention that we ourselves last year with-
drew one of our own plans when the debate and the hearings in the
committees revealed the things that we thought should take -- we
should take more time with and study again. These particular bills
probably had the most extensive hearing before the Senate than any
other legislation or any other program that's been up there and we
are willing to sit down and try to work something out.
0
At the same time, Governor, what's your feelings about
Speaker Monagan's plan to recrganize the legislature and make it a
two-year legislature and continuous --
A
Well, I haven't paid too much attention to that, there have
been a few other things on my mind, but once again, my first inclina-
tion would be that unless I found something against which I was very
much opposed, that this is -- this is the legislature. Just as the
Executive Branch is the Executive Branch.
SQUIRE: More questions? Thank you, Governor.
000
-14-