Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564106",
    "label": "Transcripts - 01/19/1971, 01/28/1971, 02/04/1971, 02/16/1971",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564106"
}

{
    "id": "118564106",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564106",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Transcripts - 01/19/1971, 01/28/1971, 02/04/1971, 02/16/1971",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564106",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Press Conference Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-006-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-006-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-006-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564106",
    "naId": 118564106,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-006-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "97634ac7a2aeba14",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual\ncollections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Press Conference Transcripts -\n01/19/1971, 01/28/1971, 02/04/1971, 02/16/1971\nBox: P03\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\ninventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at:\[email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nPRESS C\nERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD\nCAGAN\nHELD JANUARY 19, 1971\nReported by: Governor's Press Office (RAS)\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is furnished\nto the members of the Capitol Press Corps for their convenience only.\nBecause of the need to get it to the press as rapidly as possible\nafter the conference, no corrections are made and there is no guaranty\nof absolute accuracy.)\n-0-\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nGood morning. We have visitors. Bill Rivers has brought his\njournalism class over from Stanford; this is the fourth year in\nsuccession now. Getting like the swallow from Capistrano. But,\nwelcome. Hope you enjoy what's going on, so all of you mind your\nmanners here.\nQ\nGovernor, your staff says that you have not taken any position on\nlegalizing off-track betting. Can you tell us if that means you're\nwilling to consider that as an alternative revenue source for the\nstate?\nA\nWell let me answer that more generally. It is true that on that\nparticular phase of some of the things suggested, I have never sat\ndown and pondered on the ramifications of that whole thing, so I have\nto say that I'm willing to listen to what the proposale are, in one\ncontext in a context let's say, for example, of general tax reform\nwhich we will be discussing in this session. But all of the conversa-\ntion that's gone on about legalizing gambling or having lotteries or\nseeking some other form of revenue, I just think is out of line right\nat the moment because as I said in my State of the State Message, I\ndon't believe we should be looking for new sources of revenue as an\nanswer to the problems. I believe the problems can be solved within\nthe budget and without going outside for additional revenue. And so\ntreating it in that regard, I just think this is conversation that\nprobably is more fitting in a program of tax reform, or discussion of\ntax reform, than it is in looking for sources of revenue.\nQ\nIn that context, you are willing to consider off-track betting as\na possible new\nA\nI said I'm willing to hear what proposals they have and then see\nwhat the ramifications might be.\nQ\nGovernor, would you like to see a separate bill, then, on withhold-\ning taxes without forgiveness?\nA\nI would rather see withholding included also in tax reform as it\nwas last year. In the matter of forgiveness, I haven't changed my\nposition on that. A lot depends on when withholding would go into\n-1-\neffect, at what time f the year it would go int effect. But I still\nbelieve that as the state could afford to give this money back in this\nform of forgiveness, it should do so.\nQ\nDO you support Bagley's bill for total forgiveness? Is he carry-\ning your bill?\nA\nWell, he must be carrying his own bill. I haven't introduced any\nbills as yet. You just caught me a little by surprise there. As I\nsay, I would like to see withholding kept within the context of tax\nreform.\nQ\nYou're supporting the same principle, then, that you supported\nlast year. Last year it turned out to be 35 percent.\nA\nWell, that was because that was the amount of money, just about,\ndependent on the time at which it would have gone into operation. As\nthe year went on, and tax reform did not pass, we were actually faced\nwith a smaller amount of forgiveness that would have been available\nas the date would have had to be set back for putting into effect\nwithholding.\n2\nRight, so if it were imposed in the new bill at the same time,\nthen you would favor the same percentage of forgiveness?\nA\nWell, the same principle that I followed last year, yes.\ning\nQ\nGovernor, would you favor a separate withhold/bill with the for-\ngiveness provision, or must it be a part of tax reform?\nA\nNo, I'm not frozen into this. I've just said that I would like\nto see it. I think that we should be going forward. As a matter of\nfact we have had some discussions already and with some of the\nDemocratic leadership on tax reform. And before we start going off\non individual tax measures, I would like to see them all incorporated\nin that discussion.\nQ\nGovernor, will you cause to be introduced this year your own\nproposals on tax reform as you did a year ago, and the year before\nthat.\nA\nNo, I'm perfectly willing to work with the Democratic leadership\non this. I think we have to come up with a bipartisan tax reform\nproposal, or there won't be one, and I don't think we can possibly\nface the people again if we don't keep the promise that both parties\nhave made to provide real and meaningful tax reform.\nQ\nWell, Governor, in view of the public utterances of somebody like\nAssemblyman Brown on the role of government and how you raise money\nand your own philosophy on the role of government, do you really think\n-2-\nthat there's any ce that you're going to ye along with the\nDemocratic leadership in this matter of tax reform and raising\nrevenues?\nA\nWell, I think as we proved last year that this particular issue\ndoes cross party lines, and we found that Democrats in great numbers\nsupporting our tax reform proposal last year. As a matter of fact,\n78 percent of the Legislature voted for the tax reform program, which\nmeant a sizeable crossing of party lines. I think that Assemblyman\nBrown has given a very clear-cut exposition of the difference between\nthe Democratic and the Republican philosophy. His is that the govern-\nment should think of all the things it wants to do for the people and\nthen send them the bill. I believe that the government should take\nthe money provided by the people and their revenues and apportion that\nmoney out on a priority basis among those programs that a government\ncan perform. And this is just a fundamental philosophical difference.\nQ\nIn view of that philosophical difference, how do you see you're\ngoing to get along with them, or work out any bill that is satisfactory\nto both of you?\nA\nWell, I don't think Assemblyman Brown has ever suggested that he\nis speaking as the voice of the entire Democratic legislature.\nQ\nGovernor Reagan, by your answer a moment ago, are you saying\nthat you are definitely going to wait for the Democrats to come up\nwith their own tax reform package without presenting yours again?\nA\nNo, we've already been in discussions with them, and we're willing\nto continue those discussions, hopefully on a piece of bipartisan\nlegislation.\nQ\nGovernor, in view of the forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court action\non capital punishment\nA\nHe's switching subjects here. Is this taxes here? Wait until\nwe finish taxes.\nQ\nGovernor, am I to understand you that you will not introduce\nyour own bill on tax reform?\nA\nNo, well I think that this is a situation now where both sides\nhave expressed a desire for tax reform. And I see no reason why\nwe should not sit down and work out this mutually satisfactory program\ninstead of getting into a partisan hassle on the floor over whether it\nwould be one or the other.\nQ\nSo you won't have your own bill.\nA\nNo.\n-3-\nQ\nGovernor, I'V jot a related question. Y terday you assigned\nLieutenant Governor Reinecke to try to stimulate business in\nCalifornia. Does this indicate that a lot of these rosy productions\nwe heard here last year about the improvement in the economy did not\ncome to pass?\nA\nNo, I think the comeback out of the anti-inflation fight has\nbeen slowed. I think everyone has agreed to that. And I think one of\nthe factors slowing it is, has on one side a very bright silver lining;\nit is the winding down of the war, which has hit California perhaps\nmore than other states because of the aerospace industry. Therefore,\nI think that California has always had a problem of full employment,\nwhether it's due to our geographic position, or the emphasis, or the\npercentage of our industry that has been involved in government\nbusiness. Our unemployment has always run above the national average.\nAnd so I think a program to stimulate the economy, to improve the\nbusiness climate, to get jobs here for the people we have in\nCalifornia, is necessary.\nQ\nGovernor, on this matter of no tax increase and balancing the\nbudget without a tax increase, are your feet in concrete on that issue?\nA\nI'm a little sensitive to using that term since last year.\nI made a statement to the Legislature, I will repeat it in the Budget\nMessage, that we do face a choice. We can balance the budget by reforms\nand economies in government, and particularly reforms in welfare and\nMedi-Cal. If the, the other choice is to simply choose the easy path\nof turning to the people, sending them a bill, which means raising\ntheir taxes. I do not believe that is necessary. But the choice is\nnow up to all of us here in government. Obviously, this is a very\nimportant choice for the Legislature. Obviously, they will have a\nvery important part to play in making that choice. But if they will\njoin with us in undertaking the reforms that we suggest, and we solicit\ntheir suggestions also, in a complete audit of every state program as\nto its priority, its value to the people, we can meet this particular\ncrisis to the benefit of the people, I think, a long range benefit,\nwithout a tax increase.\n0\nIf you still consider late in this session that no new taxes\nare needed, would you consider off-track betting as a possible revenue\nsource for cities and counties?\nA\nOh, that's a hypothetical one, John, and I'd rather not answer\nit here. I'll take those things as they come.\n-4-\nα\nGovernor, get' g back to unemployment, i 1968 you announced\na\nProject Focus which was to be/pilot project to find jobs for the\nunemployed. It was tested under Carson Amos in Fresno for about a\nyear, and then closed its doors, and your office said you were going\nto reevaluate the program. Whatever happened to Project Focus?\nA\nWell, it didn't live up to the hopes we had for it. And this\nis one of the places where we believe that in part, not entirely, it\ndidn't live up because we were running counter to a tide within the\nwith\nagencies and those who are entrusted/handling welfare programs. But\nwe did learn some things from it, and some of the things we did learn\nare reflected now in the new Department of Human Resources Development\nthat is going forward on a basis of translating or transferring people\nfrom welfare to employment in the private sector. And this program,\nas you know, got under way a year or so ago and it's going going to,\nis playing a major role right now. It is playing a major role in our\nefforts to meet the unemployment problems, the new kind of unemployment\nproblem that has been dropped on us in this economic slump. We've had\nlong experience with the problem of the unskilled, with the typical\nwelfare recipient who needs either basic education or the answer to\na job skill, or something, to get a job. We now have the emergency\nproblem of technically skilled, highly skilled people, who through no\nfault of their own can't get a job. And HRD has been working very\nhard with a number of programs in that area, and with some success.\nQ\nIn what ways did it fail?\nA\nWell, it didn't give us the clear-cut example that we thought\nwe would have of a pipeline in which welfare recipients were fed in\nat one end and they came out the other end self-sustaining members of\nthe community with jobs in the private sector.\nQ\nGovernor, speaking of the budget again, you said, I believe in\nyour State of the State Message, said it can be balanced if the\nLegislature will work with you on reform. Does that mean that as\nsubmitted, it will not be balanced?\nA\nWell, technically, I have to submit a budget that is balanced.\nBut, with that, that can be done by either proposing additional\nrevenues to make a budget balance, or proposing measures that must be\ntaken to the Legislature to bring it into balance. And the latter is\nthe course we'll follow.\nQ\nHow big a deficit do you anticipate as the budget is submitted?\nA\nTune in February 3. We'll have all the facts and particulars on\nthat in the Budget Message.\n-5-\nor\nHow much of\npublic work force you prt_ se for the employment\nof able-bodied welfare recipients going to cost and how will it be\nfinanced?\nA\nWell, this is a message that will be coming out shortly after\nthe Budget Message regarding our plans for welfare reform. Generally,\nwhat I envisioned in that is that the present money in funding of\nwords\nwelfare would be the funding of such a work force. In other/we're\ngoing to translate people who are now performing no service whatsoever\nin return for this money into people who will be performing a public\nservice and holding a job.\nQ\nWho would pay the cost of administering the program, supervising\nthe training of workers, transporting them from their homes to the job,\nfurnishing them with supplies and equipment, child care for working\nmothers, and so on?\nA\nWell, all of these are details that have to be worked out in\nthis program, and there would be a number of variety of ways. First\nof all, some of the same money that is going for the administrative\nmachinery of welfare would be involved in the administering of such a\nprogram. Secondly, some of the administration would be taken over,\nfor example, by governmental agencies which are presently entrusted\nwith performing the services in which these people would be employed.\nagencies on cataloguing things to be done as yet gone into the\nTask Force approach that I envisioned and that I mentioned there\nabout establishing a priority and laying out what would be the permanent\nkinds of work.\nQ\nGovernor, do you see any contradiction in the fact that on one\nhand you're laying off employees in the State Office of Architecture\nand on the other proposing adding more through your public works force\nfor welfare recipients?\nA\nNo, I think we're talking about two entirely different things.\nAnd the layoff has nothing to do with the economy; it has to do with\nworkload. I just don't believe that the state can ask the taxpayers\nto continue in employment people for whom no job exists any longer,\na job that whether through technology or through change in policy, has\neither been reduced or phased out. And in the Department of Architecture,\nit is just plain that there is no workload to justify the continuation.\nAs you know, our policy where economies are concerned has been one of\nwherever possible of avoiding any layoff and going the route of\nattrition, just not replacing employees who leave the service of\n-6-\ngovernment, and ther\nS an annual turnover of i\netty solid\npercentage.\nQ\nDO you plan any additional layoffs?\nA\nI don't know of any that are planned right now, and, but by the\nsame token I can't tell you that the same situation might not arise in\nthey would\nsome other department or area. But I believe that/ be minimal, and they\ncertainly won't be in any great numbers\nform\nQ\nGovernor, if you get federal money in some/of revenue sharing,\nwhat would you do with that money; where would it go?\nA\nWell, I think that you're going to have to wait to see what\nthe federal government's revenue sharing, how it is going to come about,\nwhat it's going to be aimed at. I would imagine there would be some\ndirections to that money, whether it would be used in welfare, educa-\ntion and so forth, on a kind of a block grant basis. And then we\nwould use it in those areas. And I would think that such a revenue\nsharing, I am optimistic that state and local government, freed of\nsome of the unnecessary overhead of running the money through\nWashington and getting it back, with their admistrative supervision,\nthat would allow us some leeway, that we could do, perform the same\nservices and probably have a cushion which could enable us to relieve\nsome of the pressures, such as on the counties and local government so\nthat they would have more leeway with their problems.\nor\nGovernor, in view of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court will\n^hortly be acting on the capitalpunishment question, I wonder if I\ncould ask you to restate your philosophy on that matter now?\nA\nWell, I haven't changed my mind about the, about my belief that\ncapital punishment does serve 2 purpose and that it is a deterrent.\nI know many people argue this and figures that try to be given back\nand forth; actually there is no very really valid figure on this. But\nI do believe in it, and I don't think the case has been made that we\ncan eliminate it without suffering some consequences in crime. But I\nbelieve that in capital punishment, we need a speeding up of our\njudicial process to where justice is swift and certain.\nQ\nGovernor Rockefeller in Arkansas, when he recently commuted the\ndeath sentences of 15 prisoners, requested that other governors in\nthe United States do likewise. How did you react to that request?\nA\nWell, I think if you will check closely, you will find that\nGovernor Rockefeller in Arkansas had a problem that was a reflection\non some inequalities in the judicial system there and in sentences\nthat had been passed out, that there were men on Death ROW, under the\n-7-\ndeath penalty for cr es that were not the death enalty for other\nmalefactors in that state, and I think his situation was a little\ndifferent than we find in our state for example.\nQ\nWhat about the cost of maintaining this 90 some odd men that we\nCalifornia's\nnow have on/Death Row, under this condition of freeze, the practical\naspect of it. How do you feel about that?\nA\nWell, I can tell you I've never thought about or given any\nthought to the idea that you rate cost as to whether a man lives or\ndies. The decision is made by our judicial process, in jury trial.\nAlmost every man there, other than some of those who have just\nrecently arrived, has had recourse to every appellate procedure, many\nof them all the way through the Supreme Court, and in every instance,\ntheir cases have been, or their verdicts have been upheld, or they\nwouldn't still be there, and it has never occurred to me to rate this\non a basis of cost.\nQ\nOn that subject, Governor, that's a good point. These men are\nin limbo. They've been convicted by juries and yet the judiciary is\nkeeping them in limbo. They don't know where they will be next week,\nnext month or next year. How do you feel about that?\nA\nWell, this is one of the things that I think is wrong with this\nlong, drawn out legal process, and as you know I have spoken publicly\non this and delivered an address to the Bar Association, as a matter\nof fact, a year ago on the responsibility the Bar has to do something\nthink\nabout this. If there is cruel and inhuman punishment, I don't, it\nrests so much with the imposition of the death sentence as it does\nwith just this living in limbo over periods that stretch out into\na decade or more.\nQ\nIf the federal government were to override your veto on CRLA,\nyet make changes that would straighten out some of the problems, would\nthat be acceptable to you?\ndon\nA\nWell, I made that perfectly clear the other that if the federal\ngovernment could correct all its wrong and all that caused us to veto\nthe program, obviously we would no longer have a reason for a veto.\nFrankly, I don't think that can be done and I still believe the federal\ngovernment should uphold our veto. The law prescribes that the\ngovernor shall have the right of veto when, ontthe basis of evidence,\nhe being closer to the scene that the federal government, he determines\nthat the program is not beneficial to the people, is not fulfilling its\noriginal purpose, and certainly our 9,000 pages of documentation and\n-8-\n283-page report indi\ned that the CRLA isn't fu\nlling its congres-\nsional intent in the legislation and is not of benefit to the people\nhere, and we have submitted also a proposal for a plan that we think\ncould meet the legal needs of the poor, which have not been met by this\nprogram.\n2\nCan you outline that plan, Governor?\nA\nWell, basically the plan is going to, or would consist of a\ncombination of volunteer lawyers, such as we already have operating\nin the state, it would consist of funding, a foundation funding, to\nbegin with, eventually to be taken over at the local level just as\nother programs are funded through, for example, a United Fund program,\nand it would be a kind of judicare system, with the completely indigent\nbeing provided the legal service and with a sliding scale for those\nwho are a little more affluent up to a certain ceiling beyond which\nthey would not be eligible.\nQ\nGovernor, in that CRLA report, in those 283-pages, there were\nsome incidents cited that have already been corrected according to\nCRLA attorneys, such as the attorney in Marysville who was cited for\nvarious incidences; he had been dismissed several months. DO you feel\non those, are you aware of some of the problems in that report?\nA\nI'm aware of some of these things. I'm aware also that there\nwere cases that were legitimately handled by CRLA. For four years\nnow, we have pointed out shortcomings in this program. And for four\nyears, without us vetoing the program, the OEO in Washington has\npromised to correct things that have been wrong. And each year comes\naround, and the things haven't been corrected. And finally it reached\na scale, all I can tell you is that our report contains the requests\nfrom county grand juries, from county boards of supervisors, from\ncounty bar associations, from district attorneys, from judges, from\nschool boards, all asking the same thing, all asking me to veto the\nprogram and all making the request on the basis that the program does\nnot meet the needs of the poor. And on this basis, I vetoed it. This\nwas not just a single thought of mine.\n0\nThe question was really directed towards the idea that you\nstated in your report, that is the report of your appointed director,\nseveral incidences that had been corrected. Wouldn't it have been\nfair to state in the report that those incidences cited had in fact\nbeen corrected?\nA\nWell now, maybe it does in the documentation or maybe there\nare some things where corrections were made afterward and we weren't\n-9-\naware of them. I th : that in a voluminous rep t of that kind, an\ninaccuracy here and there is possible, but I will bank on that report,\nand I believe that it is sound, and as I say, it is well documented\nwith 9,000 pages of backup documentation.\nQ\nGovernor, I understand you plan to go to Washington. Will you\nmake a personal case for your CRLA veto?\nA\nWe'tl, I have to go to Washington. I'm a recently appointed\nmember of: the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs, and,\nsucceeding the governor of New York, and while there, yes, I have told\nour people that any of these matters that we've been dealing with at\nlong range and by long distance and mail, wherever it's possible that\nlike to\nwe can do some good by having personal meetings, I would/have those\nmeetings. I would like to meet with Mr. Carlucci.\nQ\nDO you plan to meet with the President on this matter or other\nmatters?\nA\nI hope to have a meeting with the President on general matters.\nQ\nWill you be arguing more for corrections of the program or\nagainst the program? Where do your sympathies lie? Would you like to\nsave CRLA, in other words?\nA\nVery frankly, no, I think that the proposal we have can do a\nbetter job and for less money.\nQ\nWould that proposal, Governor, include, assure legal services\nfor the poor in the same areas as CRLA?\nA\nYes, this would be exactly the purpose. One of the great com-\nplaints we have, the long list provided by judges, by district attorneys\nand all, of individuals who were sent to CRLA because they had a\nlegitimate problem and CRLA was too busy to take their case.\nQ\nWhat is the status of your plan?\nA\nThe status of our plan?\nQ\nYes.\nA\nWell, it has reached a certain point of planning and structuring\nbeyond which you can't go until you know what the outcome is going to\nbe in Washington.\n0\nWill it require legislation here OZ can you do it on your own?\nA\nNo, no, this can be done administratively and with the coopera-\ntion of the county bar associations and the California State Bar. And\nwe have had enthusiastic cooperation so far on working out and evolving\nthis plan.\n-10-\nQ\nGovernor, has here been any discussions stween your administra-\ntion and Washington about a possible compromise of the CRLA veto?\nA\nWell, now, no, what could a compromise be? If they correct\nthings that are wrong, I don't call that a compromise; that's correct-\ning things that are wrong.\nQ\nGovernor, what was your reaction to the San Francisco oil slick\nand what kind of assistance can you offer?\nA\nWell, our people in the Resources Department are working closely\nwith the Coast Guard on this, and we are involved over there in that.\nI think the reaction is the same as it has been for, or as it is for\nall Californians, it is a tragic accident. There are some asides to\nit. Fortunately, if it had to happen at all, it is crude oil and not\nprocessed oil, and that has a very important bearing on its effect on\nsea life, because crude oil doesn't have the toxicity that the processed\noil has. I can't help but notice that in this one tragic spill that\nis concentrated there, and we hope can be corsalled, it still isn't\nas much oil and grease as was deliberately dumped through disposal\nchannels in San Francisco Bay last year. Of course, it was spread out\nover the year last year. But it was a greater amount than this total\nspill.\nQ\nGovernor, this is the second major accident that we had with\nfreighters colliding in the bay over the last four or five years. In\nboth occasions, it happened under heavy, heavy fog. Do you think that\nperhaps there ought to be some restriction placed on the movement of\nships under certain, as there are at airports, the flights of airplanes\nunder certain\nA\nOh, you're asking one that I'm not technically qualified to\nanswer. I know that there will be an investigation and a hearing on\nthis accident, and I think we'll all know more when we hear how this\ncould have happened in spite of all the modern radar that we have.\nBecause I know that those ships go in and out of there in the fog under\nradar control, and so I'm waiting like the rest of you to find out what\ndid happen.\n2\nGovernor, what was the source of the kind of information you\njust described? How do you go about getting information on that oil\nslick? What ways do you have to find out what happened?\nA\nWell, I got a purple button on my desk, a row of them, and each\none of them is for a different cabinet officer, and all I have to do\n-11-\nis pick that phone 1\npush that button, and th e's a fellow over\nthere in Resources Department that tells me what I need to know,\nincluding helping me with my homework for my son.\nor\nGovernor, despite some tax breaks that were given the movie\nindustry a couple of years ago, the movie people are now saying that\nunemployment in Hollywood is now at a crisis level with 50 percent\nunemployment in some of the unions there, according to Don Haggerty\nof the AFL-CIO, Hollywood Film Council, who is asking for con-\ngressional investigation. Can you tell us if you feel that that is\nthe case in Hollywood and if so, if there is anything the state can\ndo about it?\nA\nNot as much as the federal government can do. I appeared\nrecently at a big mass meeting of motion picture workers from every\nbranch of the industry at the Palladium in Los Angeles. I wish I\nhad my notes with me because I spoke there on this problem. Down\nthrough the years the motion picture industry in Hollywood has never\nasked the government for help of any kind. And many times this meant\nthe motion picture company representatives sat at the bargaining table\nopposite governmental representatives of foreign countries. The United\nonly\nStates is virtually the/country in the world where the pictures of all\nthe world are free to play with no restriction, no quota and no special\ntaxes assessed against them aren't assessed against our own pictures.\nIn every other country in the world, they restrict the amount of\npictures we can show, they restrict the playing time given to those\npictures; they have extra added taxes against American pictures, and\nin many countries they still restrict the flow of our currency, our\nmoney out, the funds are frozen even after they finally admit that\nthere is some profit. Now, down through the years, the motion picture\nhas been able to meet all of that and still capture most of the play-\ning time in the world, has still been the giant of the entertainment\nindustry. But now I think it is time for government to help because\nthese foreign governments have gone beyond that. They now, in addition\nto all these other restrictions, offer outright subsidy to American\nproducers, up to as much as 85 percent of cost sometimes--- a producer\ncan go over and make his profit on the subsidy and to make the\npictures in other countries. And then they are shipped back here to\nwhen\nthis country. And I think it is time, and/you stop to think that the\nmotion picture industry in American has been No. 1 one of the biggest\nfactors in the balance of trade on our side, it has sold American\n-12-\nproduct all over the orld because it's not only hat they sell their\npictures, but styles have been set, American merchandise seen on the\nscreen in just our ordinary stories, has stimulated international\ntrade in that, and I think the picture business has a right to ask\nfor help. It is true that the unemployment in the picture business is\neasily 50 percent and even more in some of the guilds and unions.\nQ\nWill you ask the federal government, then, to impose restric-\ntions on foreign films that are shown here?\nA\nThey have a program, the industry has a program and Senator\nKuchel is representing the industry in that in Washington, and I am\nsimply offering all the support that we can for the furthering of\nthat program. Now I can't tell you now. I wish I had my notes with\nme; I know some of the specifics that are being recommended. But I,\njust off hand with memory, couldn't give you the complete program that\nthey are asking for.\nQ\nDo you have any specific programs of your own that you want to\npropose.\nA\nNo.\nQ\nWell, now are they requesting a direct subsidy from the federal\ngovernment?\nA\nI don't think SO. I think what they're offering is a kind of\na protection, well if it is a subsidy, it is one to counter this offer\ntax\nthat takes them abroad. I think it involves/incentives and so forth\nto keep them, to make it more attractive for them to produce here.\nΩ\nGovernor, Assemblyman Priolo today is introducing a bill which\nwould reform California\nA\nWhat. Is this on the same subject? Well, then, wait a minute.\nHe's got one on the same subject. Then I'll come back.\nQ\nGovernor, you mentioned that the motion picture industry has a\nright to ask for help, and I just wonder what sort of help you have in\nmind.\nA\nWell, this program that Senator Kuchel is representing the indus-\ntry on in Washington is, has some specific proposals where the govern-\nment can be of help, and as I say, I'm not familiar enough to know,\nwith all the details on that, to tell you what they are. They are\neasily available.\nQ\n(Inaudible)\nA\nI think they include that, yes.\n-13-\nQ\nAssemblyman P blo is introducing a bill ich would change our\nCalifornia election laws, moving the primary from June to August and\nalso set up a Fair Practices Commission. Would you support this bill\nand do you feel even further changes are needed in our election laws?\nA\nWell, the only change I suggest right now is I haven't seen his\nbill so I can't tell you flat out, as you know I don't say whether I\nwill or will not. The only change I'd make is that I think it could\nbe set back as far as September. I think that a lot of the cost of\ncampaigning, a lot of the troubles in the state would be eased if we\nshortened the period of campaigning, if you went into the primary\nthen\nin the couple of summer months, and/right from September right into\nthe campaign for the November election. But virtually today, you have\nto fund a campaign that whether we pretend it starts on Labor Day or\nnot, you really are funding a campaign if you're involved in the\nprimary that goes the better part of a year.\nQ\nGovernor, what do you think of Senator Alquist's idea to make\nformer governors lifetime members of the State Senate with full voting\nrights?\nA\nI think we don't deserve that. I think that when the day to\ndepart comes along, you should be allowed to depart.\n0\nGovernor, last August, Assembly Concurrent Resolution 199 asked\nfor an investigation of conditions at Soledad. Has that investigation\nbeen made and what are the results?\nA\nI'm going to let somebody else cue me on that as to whether it\nhas or not.\nMEESE: Yes, the investigation was conducted by representatives\nof the governor's office and representatives of the Human Relations\nAgency and they found, in effect, after a detailed investigation and\ntalking to a number of the employees who had requested the Assemblyman\nto conduct the investigation, that the prison was being properly\nadministered. Some changes have been made by the Department of\nCorrections coincident with this period of time, and basically, that\nthe situation is under control.\nQ\nOn the welfare work force payment, would the workers be paid\nminimum wage or would they be paid according to their grant?\nA\nWell, now you're into details that I think have to be worked\nas\nout also/to a salary scale or whether it has to take into consideration\ngrant based on size of family and so forth.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, governor.\n# # #\n-14-\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD JANUARY 28, 1971\nReported by\nBeverly Toms CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\no00\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nWell, there ought to be something to\ntalk about now that we are all here.\n2\nGovernor Senator Moscone has said in a speech today that\nthe State of California is broke and that this is due to administra-\ntive errors and fiscal amateurism by your administration, and that\n\\\nby September the State will have to issue registered warrants or\ntax\nto patients in order to pay its bills. Will you comment\non that?\nA\nWel , in the budget message that we will submit as we have\nsaid already, and maybe he got part of his information from me\nbecause in the State of the State I said that we would have a tax --\nor I mean a cash flow problem, and we will suggest two possible\nlegislative alternatives and they -- and there is another alternative\nthat sould be administrated regarding that in a way to meet the\ncash flow situation. And those will be proposed to the Legislature.\nQ\nAre you saying then that the state is broke? Is he\ncorrect in making that statement?\nA\nNo, the cash flow problem has been a matter of public\ndiscussion and public record, and I guess I'm the first one to have\nannounced it way last year when we were talking about the -- the\ntax reform program. As a matter of fact, I doubt if there would\nbe a cash flow problem had the tax reform program passed. That was\none of the aims of that program, is to -- to solve that problem.\nSenator Moscone in his running around again yelling the sky is\nfalling, thought, about the state being broke and all -- he isn't\nserving a useful purpose even though he is running for office a\nlittle early. Dut the situation is as we said it was, that yes, the\nrevenues are down beaause of the economic slump that is nationwide\n-1-\nand the cost of M 1-Cal and welfare which we ave repeatedly tried\nto get help in reforming are much higher than had been anticipated,\nand these have given us a fiscal problem. It is a problem that\nwe can meet, but it is nothing like the mess that we inherited a\nfew years ago.\na\nDo you mean that --\nQ\nGovernor, another topic.\nVOICES:\nNo.\n2\n-- you will not be able to meet it through the -- ordinary\ninternal borrowing that we have done in the past?\nA\nNo, that's right, and I announced that more than a year\nago, I said that by --\nQ\nSo the possibility -- there is a possibility of registered\nwarrants?\nA\nI said that we will submit some alternatives to the Legis-\nlature that can meet this problem.\nQ\nAnd that may --\nA\nAnd when I introduced the tax reform program last year\nI said that by next year we would be in a borrowing position,\ninternal borrowing position due to cash flow that was greater than\nthe amount of revenues from which we had to borrow.\nQ\nGovernor, the current budget includes almost 200 million\ndollars to solve the cash equity problem. Are you saying that\nyou have been forced to use that 200 million dollars and it is no\nlonger available as a reserve to take care of the cash flow problem?\nA\nI stated in the State of State message that by the end of\nthis year the budget balance -- we would have a cash flow problem.\nWe would utilize cash flow.\nQ\nIs registered warrants, though, one of the alternatives\nthat y:u are going to propose?\nA\nI'm not going to comment on what the alternatives are as\nthere is a budget message coming up with all of that.\nQ\nGovernor, apparently the revenue gap is possibly even\nlarger than four years ago. What's different about the mess?\nA\nWell, one of the things that's different about the mess is\nthat last -- four years ago we had a fiscal problem that was not the\nresult of an economic slump but it was the result of a government\nthat had grown over the years in which spending had been not curbed\n-2-\nas we have curbed it and tried to curb it in other areas. And\nthat they had balanced each time and paid for this excess government\nby gimmicks and devices in which they borrowed ahead on their own\nrevenues, such as collecting certain taxes in advance, and finally\nresorting to the last gimmick which was accrual bookkeeping in an\neffort to stave off the need for new taxes before the election, and\nwhat it resulted in was accepting a budget for twelve months spending\nthat was based on 15 months revenue. And we inherited the position\nof having -- having to follow that with coming back to twelve months\nrevenue for a government that had been built up to that size and\nit is that size government we have been trying to wind down and get\nback within the twelve months revenue. Now, that's a little different\nthan coming onto an economic slump in which your sales tax and\nincome tax revenues are down and your outgo is up. Plus the fact\nthat in the three years since, due to the federal spending policies\nand this certainly is a documented matter for anyone who wants to\nstudy the economics of it -- in the last three years of the Johnson\nadministration, in a time of full employment they resorted to $40\nmillion dollar deficit financing over those three years and brought\nthe inflation rate up to a sudden -- from the one and a half -- two\nper cent that we have been going on along -- under the new economics\ntheory that that will preserve prosperity, when suddenly skyrocketed\nup to three or four times the rate of inflatinn. Now, that's an\nentirely different kind of problem, and we are not going to meet\nit with gimmicks.\n8\nGovernor, isn't it likely to develop into the same\nkind of a problem, though, if it continues as it is? Aren't\nyou going to get into the same kind of fiscal bind and perhaps\nhave to draw on advance revenues or something?\nA\nNo, what we are hoping for is, as I said in the State of\nthe State if the Legislature will accept our proposals for reducing\nthe size and the cost of government, particularly getting control\nof welfare and Medi-Cal, and if you'll recall three years ago -- I\ndon't know whether you'll recall because certainly nobody has been\nwriting this, but in the whole history of Medi-Cal, from the first\nthree months we were in office we pointed to the fact that the\nprogram within the first seven or eight months of its existence, or\nits implementation, was running a hundred million dollars in the hole\nand by the end of the year would run two hundred million in the hole,\n-3-\nand I was amused to see a legislator the other day quoted as saying\nthat when the legislature finally investigated they found that\nthere was no such deficit. Of course they didn't. Because we\nhave instituted a program that eliminated the deficit even though\nsubsequently a court ordered us to stop the -- the changes in the\nprogram or the procedures that we had invoked. And, yos, by the\nend of the year, by the time the legislature had gotten around to\nit, we had reduced the cost of Medi-Cal that much. But also by that\ntime after the court orderthad stopped us from doing the changes\nthat we were doing the investigation started in again and we pointed\nout then that only a third of the people in this state that were\neligible for Medi-Cal were using it and that in this entire --\nthis period since more and more people are discovering their\neligibility. I don't know whether all of them have found out about\nit yet or not, but it is now not one out of 15, it is one out of\n9 who are getting Medi-Cal.\nD\nGovernor, did the change in accounting procedure in Los\nAngeles last year contribute to the Medi-Cal deficit that you -\nthat you've mentioned last -- last December?\nA\nYes.\n0\nWhat's your understanding of how that contributed to it?\nA\nWell, Los Angeles, which has 1,400,000 of the Medi-Cal\nrecipients, like all the other counties, we build our case load on\nthe estimates that are given us of case load by the counties and\nLos Angeles used a system of kind of spot check and estimate and\nthey transferred from that to an actual head count of the recipients.\nAnd this changed their figure about a little over 20,000. Now,\nthis was a -- roughly a one per cent -- a little more, maybe, one\nand a half per cent error in account of a million 400 thousand.\nBut we had previously received their estimate on the basis they\nhad already -- always done it. Then we received the head count\nsubsequent to that.\nQ\nGovernor, that change, according to the people in Los\nAngeles, and in your own department, was made in March. But the --\nand then the administration came back to the legislature in June\nasking for additional funds from Medi-Cal program and they said at\nthat time, in June, they had not learned of the LosAngeles change.\nI was wondering why there was this great delay between the significant\n-4-\nchange in Los Angeles and the time that the administratinn made its --\ndiscovered the change.\nA\nI don't know the timing on this or when the figures changed.\nI do know that in -- it wasn't in May that I asked the Legislature\nto add $60 million dollars more in the budget amount for this because\neven then we had discovered additional cost factors.\n0\nBut it wasn't the Los Angeles change?\nA\nI don't know whether it was or not.\nQ\nWell, Governor, if it was the Los Angeles change, was part\nof it, and you learned about it -- your people in the Department of\nHealth Care Services learned about it in July, why in December,\nwhen you were talking about these cuts, did you blame it on excesses\nin the Medi-Cal program and why did you talk about increasing case\nloads when this was an element in the creation of the deficit?\nA\nBecause there has been an increase in the case load far\nin excess of the 20,000 of Los Angeles. And even according to your\nown story, only a part of the $142 million dollar deficit could be\nlaid to this change in accounting by Los Angeles.\nQ\nWas the major part, though, Governor?\nA\nWhat\nQ\nIt was the major part, according to the figures -- your\nHCS people give us.\nPAUL BECK:\n50 million out of 140 isn't a major part,\nBob.\nQ\nWell, it wasn't 50 million, it was the whole -- they call\nmedically needy group which totals about 70 some odd million, and\nthen there was another estimate that they made on -- insofar as the\ncreation of intermediate care facilities would be concerned, they\nthought more people would go into business than went into that\nbusiness, and that accounted for, in theory, 20 million more of the\ndeficit, so it was this information, the estimate of who would go\ninto business that figured in the deficit, too. I was just curious\nwhy you talked about excessed in the program and the deficits were\nbased on something else.\nA\nNo, -- and I do not subscribe to what you are just saying\nbecause it is typical of the same kind of distortion that was con-\ntained in the Los Angeles Times headline yesterday. And I don't\nagree with that and I don't challenge your right to investigate\n-5-\nany part of this C our good intentions or wha we have been trying\nto do with the program. But I would also suggest that when you are\ninvestigating I would find it much more pleasing to me if someone\nwould mention along the line that these horrifying cuts that I have made\nin Medi-Cal so far were mandated on me by the legislature and not\nsomething I dreamed up in my own mind, but there seema to be a news\nboycott on that.\nQ\nWell, Governor, I don't -- I don't mean to talk about\nthat particular point but --\nA\nI bet you don't.\n8\nWell, you said in -- you said in your announcement that the\ncuts were a result of Medi-Cal excesses, and the question I have is\nyou just said yourself that the Los Angeles change and -- the\nstatistical change figured into-your Department of Health Care\nServices said that your own estimate of who would go into the\nnursing home business figured into it. According to -- you add\nit all up, it comes to nearly a hundred dillion dollars on those\ntwo elements alone. Now, if that was the case, would you still\nsay that it was excesses in the program now, knowing all that now?\nA\nYes, and I also would say that why don't you go back where\nyou were yesterday and have another conversation with Dr. Brian\nwho has more of the details than I have on this. I can only tell\nyou that the budget was submitted on the basis of the best informa-\ntion to my knowledge that we had. That there are excesses in the\nprogram, that welfare has been -- and Medi-Cal have been out of\ncontrol as long as I've been Governor, and that we have been trying\nour best to seek reforms that would bring them under control.\nNow,\nthe program was a jerry-buitt structure when itwas created. It\nstarted going in debt the first day. We found when we took office\nand it had only been in effect a few months, that they hadn't even\npaid the bills that were submitted in the first week of the program.\nWe found it was going 200 million dollars in debt. We managed to\nsalvage that and then a court order reversed us. We have had\ncourt orders that have added $461 million dollars to the welfare costs\nsince we have been in office. And I still say that if the legisla-\nture will joing with us in reforming these programs we can remove\nthe necessity for this kind of crisis in the future. But the\nprogram is virtually unmanageable.\nQ\nGovernor, one of the reforms you suggested in your State\nof the State message was to take the pensioners, the elderly, out of\n-6-\nthe welfare category, since you said they don't belong there.\nA\nRight.\n6\nAnd set up some kind of system akin to the Social Security\nsystem where they get a check every month. They don't have to go\ndown and requalify every month to say they are still growing old,\nI think was your terms.\nA\nYes.\nD\nWouldn't a standardized payment involve in some cases some\nelderly people receiving less per month than they might now receive?\nA\nI don't think so and I think that the whole idea would be\nthat you would have to work out -- and there may very easily be\ncategories, everyone today does not receive the same amonnt of\nmoney.\nD\nThat's right.\nA\nBut the thing I'm talking about is the automating and\nthe removing of a great many social services that are now applied\nto them that bequire a great bureaucracy at the county level and\nservices that I don't believe are necessary. The same kind of\nservices that are applied to welfare recipients who are able-\nbodied and supposedly temporary recipients of welfare. That these\nothers are so obviously permanent recipients that this procedure\ncould be automated. Similar to this process -- the overhead for\nSocial Security is only about three per cent, the administrative\noverhead. That is not true of any other welfare program.\n8\nWell, then, as your administration envisions this particular\nreform there would not then be any cuts -- even some cases of the\nOES payment that is currently received by some senior citizens?\nA\nNow wait a minute, give me that again. There wouldn't be\nwhat?\nQ\nRight now they have to go down, as I understand it,\nGovernor, they have to go down every month and requalify to see if\nthey are still eligible and they have to check their special needs.\nAs I understand it, the proposal which your administration is thinking\nabout is to have these people come down only once a year to eliminate\nthe monthly eligibility check. So they would get a standardized\npayment for twelve months, they wouldn't have to come down every\nmonth. But if they do get a standardized payment for twelve months\nthat would in some cases be less than the monthly payments they now\nreceive?\n-7-\nA\nWell, all I know is that our every effort is going to be\nnot to penalize anyone. but 1f possible to even do better by them\nand to use some of the wherewithall that might be free to better their\nlot. Because I think most of those people are not receiving adequate\ncare now. And so I'm sure that provision would be made that no one\nwould be penalized and I'm sure that if anyone's circumstances changed\nbetween visits, some catastrophe befell, that there would be provision\nmade that we could meet that change.\n0\nGovernor, in Washington, either in your meeting with the\nPresident or other officials, did you get an indication of coopera-\ntion in your hope of getting federal approval for some of the\nexperimental reforms you talked about in the welfare system?\nA\nWell, I had 2 long talk with Secretary Elliott Richardson\nand found him most interested in the whole idea of experiments at\nstate levels, and he wants to meet with our people. He -- in fact\nhe requested it before -- before I could get around to asking him\nif we could meet with him. He wants to hear the proposals that\nwe have. He has problems. He has -- he has the problem of where\nsome regulations and waivers might require at least congressional\napproval or approval of some of the congressional committees and\nhe pointed out to me the problem that we have of where regulations\nare implementing congressinnal intent, but he also expressed a\nwillingness to try for that.\n8\nGovernor, could I clarify something on the original before\nwe got off on the overall budget things you were talking about.\nWere you saying that even if the cuts that you are recommending in\nwelfare, Medi-Cal and towards education, some people estimated 400\nmillion -- 500 million dollars, if these were all done and your\nreform tax -- tax reform program was adopted, allbeit belatedly so,\nnot much help for this year, that this fall you are going to -- with\nall that still have a cash flow problem that will require outside\nborrowing?\nA\nNo, we can't go to outside borrowing. As it now --\nthis is against the law in California. But we will present alter-\nnatives to the legislature that will require legislation and there\nis one alternative open to us administratively and any one of these\nthree will meet this problem of cash flow in the fall. But hope-\nfully tax reform -- something in the same neighborhood, in general\nas what we tried for lastvyear, would then remove this for the future.\n-8-\nQ\nRegistered warrants would be available administratively,\nright?\nYou wouldn't need any legislation for that?\nA\nThis has always been available.\nD\nNew subject, Governor.\nA\nSay, wait a minute. Ray way back there wanted -- we changed\nsubjects three times since he --\nQ\nLet's keep on the subject, Governor, we can finish this\nthing.\nA\nIs there anyone --\nQ\nI got one more question, Governor. If it should turn out\nif you look at this, that the -- that the cuts that you've made in\ntheprogram were caused by changes in reporting or large part of them\ncaused by changes in reporting or changes in estimates and things like\nthat, will you still feel that the cuts that you made were justified?\nThat 1s, that the cuts within the program itself, in reducing services\nwere justified on the basis of those figures?\nA\nWell, the wrong word is used, \"justified.\" The cuts are\nmandated at any time that the deficit in Medi-Cal is going to exceed\nby ten per cent the budgeted amount. And when that happened that\nlaw passed in '67, which was implemented in '68, went into effect in\n'68, mandated on the administration the cuts - procedures that we had\nto follow. I have no choice in that matter, and these were mandated --\nand incidentally it was not a bill I supported. I signed it\nreluctantly. We had asked the legislature to help us then four\nyears ago reform the program and this was their. 1dea of reform and\nit was just about as Mickey Mouse as the program they passed to begin\nwith.\n0\nCould you go to the legislature now and ask for more --\nthere is a bill in it now to re -- to fund the program and abolish\nthe cuts that you made.\nA\nNo, we will be submitting to the legislature in a\nsubsequent message following the budget -- we will be submitting\na plan for a reform of Medi-Cal.\nQ\nDat it won't affect this year, though?\nA\nNo, in this year it is the cuts that We have implemented\nthat are bringing the program back into balance between now and the\nend of the fiscal year.\nQ\nThen no matter what caused those cuts, what the situation\n-9-\nwas, you feel that the -- the reductions should remain in force?\nA\nFor the balance of this year? Well, since they are\nnecessary to restore a balance, again I have to say it isn't a case\nof what I think. It:1s what the law mandates. And the law has\nmandated these cuts on me. And most of the people who were testify-\ning before the -- the legislative committees and the legislative\ncommittees who have been hearing this testimony all know that this\nis the law, that I have no choice in the matter, and I'm just myself\na little put out that no one has bothered to mention that in passing.\nBecause as I said tothis legislature, I just -- now I feel a little\nself conscious getting the full credit for all of this.\n0\nAnother one back here on the same subject.\nA\nWe will get to you.\n&\nYou mentioned removing some social services. What were\nyou talking about, what kind of social services?\nA\nTo the --\no\nsocial services.\nA\nTo the senior citizens, disabled and so forth?\nD\nRight.\nweltare\nA\nWell, you will find that I can't list them all here, but you\nwill find that there is much the same procedure of it being assigned\nas part of a case load to case workers, and special grants and so\nforth to meet special problems of these disabled and these elderly\npeople, and I believe that while there are probably some individuals\nthat would require some special care, that the overwhelming majority\nof them just the same as the people who are simply drawing Social\nSecurity, could receive an adequate income in an automated process\nand they are adults and they don't require this -- all of this admini-\nstrative overhead.\nQ\nBut would you be cutting services? Would there be some\nservices --\nA\nNo, we would be providing the income that would pay for\nthese.\nQ\nI see.\n0\nGovernor, in your October 30th statewide telecast from\nAnaheim you announced through Republican teamwork you got President\nNixon's assurance that he would release frozen funds for Califormia\nwater programs, specifically $10 million dollars for Westlands Project.\n-10-\nThe money hasn't been released and Casper Weincerger says it is\nunfortunate that false hopes were raised. He says your statements\nmust have resulted from a misunderstanding. Can you tell us, first,\nwhat happened and second, didyou discuss this on your recent visit\nto Washington?\nA\nNo, and what I understand happened that day, we received --\nI received a call on the road from the head of one of the labor unions\ninvolved about this and about the continuation of the project, and\nas I said before, immediately got on the phone and by nightfall was\ntold that the money was being -- was released. I understand now\nthat the misunderstanding involving myself and Washington was that\nthe money was released for the balance of a certain period of the\nproject and that the misunderstanding was -- and I didn't even know\nthat there was any problem concerning the subsequent year or subse-\nquent stage of the project -- and it is that money which has not been\nreleased. But the program which was due to close down the following\nweek WQS continued in its funding. I thought that this solved the\nsituation. I didn't know that it came to another point further\nup the line and that that money has not yet been released or appropri-\nated for that subsequent period.\nQ\nDo you have any new assurances from the Nixon administra-\ntion about release of this money then in the future?\nA\nI don't know what the situation is on that. I haven't\nchecked with Bill Gianelli, the people that would know about that.\nIt was a -- it was a -- I get mixed up on the names here, Bureau\nof Reclamation project, but there was no misstatement of fact.\nWe had -- we had secured the release of money that stopped the\nshutdown that was scheduled for the following week. This was taken\nby someone, -- I made the announcement, my not understanding perhaps\nthat there was a subsequent appropriation that was necessary to\ncontinue on into the future, and so evidently assumed that that\nmeant that had been approved, too. I didn't even know there was\nsuch a thing.\no\nGovernor Reagan, the State Lands Commission approved new\noffshore drilling off of Santa Barbara. What is your reaction to\nthis?\nA\nNo, Ray, it is Seal Beach, and it is -- they have approved --\nit is the first one we have approved. We certainly can't find any\npossibility or they can't, of a hazard there. It is a man made\nisland. There are already 78 wells on that island. It isn't a\nderrick or a platí n and it isn't up in the\nctured leaky bottom\nthat we have in the Santa Barbara channel, and there is going to be an\nadditional well drilled on that same artificial island that's built\noffshore.\n0\nWhat has the State done to insure the safety of any of\nthis offshore drilling in the future? What assurance --\nA\nWell, wieh the exception of a thing of this kind, this is\nthe first one that we have allowed. There is a moratorium on drilling\nthat is still in effect on state tidelands pending the -- and while\nwe worked with them to find if there -- better means of handling\nproblems and accidents if they should happen in the future, and I\ndon't know whether the Lands Commission has made any change in that\nposition or not. As I say, this well was a totally different --\ndifferent case.\n0\nGovernor, how do you view the reports of the last couple\ndays that you are -- that Washington is about to override your veto\nof CRLA?\nA\nI still -- well, I still have to say I'm confident that\nthey won't. The law is very specific and clear in my right to veto\nthat program. It is also very clear that the only way it can be\noverridden is if the -- is if Washington -- they have to establish\nthat contrary to my veto the program is in conformity with all of\nthe rules, laws and regulations concerning the program. And to do\nthis they'd have to -- they'd have to be rather dishonest because\nit isn't.\nQ\nYou look for a compromise?\nA\nI know that they would -- they have tried to find some way\nin which to -- they could approve it by making great and drastic\nchanges in the program as it now exists, and I'm quite sure if it\nshould come to pass that they would still override the veto, I'm\nquite sure it would not be simply to override the veto and continue\nwith business as is, I'm quite sure there would be drastic changes\nin the program.\n8\nHas there been any favorable reaction to your alternative\nplan you submitted at the time of your veto?\nA\nIt was very well received in Washington. And well received\nat the White House.\n-12-\nQ\nGovernor, how long can Mr. Uhler be working on preparing\nan alternate plan and isn't it peculiar that he would be assigned to\ndo that at the same time he's theoretically the liaison between your\nadministration and the CRLA here in California?\nA\nOh, not at all, because for the last four years we have\nbeen trying to get Washington, each time we have told them how\nreluctantly we approved the continuation of the program, because of\nthe same kind of faults that we were finding, and each time Washington\nmade promises to us that there would be changes. And the promises\nweren't kept, they didn't make the changes. This is why we took the\nfinal action this time. But I have always insisted from the very\nfirst that in any criticism of the program or in any change of the\nprogram that we must -- you don't defeat something with nothing.\nThat I was committed to the belief that the poor were entitled to\nthis legal service, and I have urged our people to find an alternate\nprogram so that we could at least suggest to Washington that we\nweren't just against it and asking to cancel, that we had a proposal\nfor something that would do the job better.\nQ\nWell, isn't it -- didn't it lead you subject to criticisms\nif at the one time you have Mr. Uhler preparing an alternate plan,\nat the same time he's doing that purportedly making objective inquiry\nof the efficacy of CRLA in California?\nA\nNo, because from the very first when they started checking\nup on the hundreds of complaints that we were getting in the program\nthey lnew my policy, which was that if we were -- if I was going\nto on the basis of the reports they'd bring back -- if it developed\nthat this led to a veto that I wanted, as I wanted for four years,\na concrete proposal of a program that would meet the problem of the -\nof the needy, the rural poor. Now we have approved without any\nhesitation any number of neighborhood legal assistance programs\nin California under OEO who are representing the poor in the urban\nareas, and very successfully and many of those have conducted class\nsuits against this administration and some of those successfully.\nSo it isn't true that this is our reason. The plain simple fact\nis that CRLA in California is not representing the poor as the law\nrequired it to do. And we think there is a better way to do it.\nQ\nSurely you and your staff must have been consulted by those\n-13-\npeople in Washington about what form you would like to see the\ndrastic changes take in a new CRLA program. If that's the\ndirection in which they were going to go.\nA\nWell, we finally gave our proposal of a program. Now\nour original proposal was that this program that we proposed could\nbe funded by foundatines and privately funded and wouldn't call for\ntax dollars. We are perfectly willing to give that to OEO and let\nthem fund it as an OEO project. We made that clear to them. Matter\nof funding was not important. If they feel that OEO wants to continue\nin that business, they are welcome to the proposals that we made.\n8\nYou said that if they overrode the veto it would only be\nwith major changes in program. You have an indication that you have\nsome specific idea of what changes would be involved if there were\nan override?\nA\nNo, I -- our people have been dealing with them and have\nbeen talking with them at some length in the last few weeks on this\nproposal and all I know is I haven't had areport on the details,\nthat many proposals have been made by CRLA as to changes that they\nwere willing to make.\nQ\nYou don't know specifically what the administration --\nNixon administration would insist on?\nA\nNo. No.\nD\nGovernor, was this offered in the spirit of a compromise\nof - an override?\nA\nWell, from their standpoint it is offered on the basis\nthat I think we have to agree that they'd like to find some way to\nnot sustain my veto. So they are exploring every avenue. Frankly,\nI grow stronger by the day in my belief that the veto should be\nupheld.\nQ\nOne more question, Governor, the head of the CRLA in\nCalifornia said today that your administration is asking other\ngovernors and congressmen to actively support this -- the sustaining\nof your veto by the -- your veto by the Nixon administration. Is\nthat true, are you asking other peopleto help you out?\nA\nI don't know --\nMR. MEESE: Well, the congressmen in the areas served --\npurportedly served by CRLA themselves have been in touch with us\nbecause they wanted to importune the White House to sustain the veto.\nOther governors have similar problems and they have asked us for\n-14-\ninformation, but as far as any massive move to these people, the answer\nis no.\nA\nI informed the Republican governors that the possibility --\nbecause we hadn't made the decision yet, that the possibility existed\nthat I would veto this program and I said if so I would inform them\nof our reasons for the veto and the procedures that we had taken.\nAnd I can only tell you that the interest in this and the interest\nin getting that information was -- was great and was unanimous because\nI don't know of a governor -- I haven't met a governor -- maybe\nthere are some that -- but I haven't met one yet that does not have\nmuch the same criticisms of this program in their states that we have\nhere.\nQ\nGovernor, why is the White House, do you think, reluctant\n(CRLA)\nto sustain your, veto if it was, as you say, received with some\napproval initially?\nA\nWell, let me point something out and it fits the governor\nas well as the president. Everyone insists on saying that this is\nthe White House versus the Governor's office. Remember that a\nman who is President of the United States, I think, would only very\nreluctantly inject himself into a situation involved these various\ndepartments any more than I would. It is -- you expect in good\nadministration that you have appointed people and you have departments\nhandling these and you hope that they will arrive at the right\ndecision.\nAnd\nif\nthe\n-- if it comes to a case then of overrule\none of your departments, that there is an administrative factor\nenters in. I would think : long time about overruling one of our own\ndepartments on some decision that was in their -- in their domain and\nthat they were running, I would have to feel that they were being\nvery wrong before I would just step in and reverse them and I think\nthis is theposition of the President. If possible he would like very\nmuch to feel that this will be handled through legitimate channels,\nthrough the department, and through the appointed director.\n0\nAre you saying then that the federal OEO is desperate in\nlooking for a way not to sustain your veto?\nA\nThat's -- that's what I said, yes. And we were -- we are\nprepared for that to be their attitude.\n8\nIs there a philosophical difference between you and the\nDirector of Federal OEO, or how do you see it?\n-15-\nA\nWell, I don't know. I don't think it is a philosophical\nat all. I think it is just that Washington -- various departments\nand agencies in Washington sort of have a built-in reluctance to\nbelieve that state or lòcal governments can be right. You have\nseen this in the reactions even -- bi-partisan, both parties, in the\nreactions to the idea of revenue sharing, that, heavens, never should\nit be admitted that a local or a state government could use federal\nfunds as efficiently as the federal government can dispense them,\nand you know, they think out here in the provinces that we -- we\naren't quite up to standard.\nQ\nGovernor, back to your comment a moment ago about President\nNixon perhaps being reluctant to inject himself into this. Did\nyou take your case directly to the President -- personally to the\nPresident when you were back there?\nA\nAnd without asking for any answer or reply from him I\nsimply explained to him what the case was, why our -- why we had\ntaken the steps that we had taken and called to his attentinn that\nwe did have a plan.\n0\nDid he give you any answer?\nA\nWhat?\n: :\nYou said you didn't ask for any answer.\nA\nDidn't ask for any answer, no.\nQ\nBut he didn't give you one either?\nA\nNo.\n(Laughter)\nQ\nGovernor, regardless of where some of these decisions are\nbeing made in Washington, your administration and Washington has\nhad some serious disagreements on programs such as some of the OEO,\nwelfare conformity, family assistance plan and now national health\ninsurance. How would you characterize your relationship with the\nNixon administration in general?\nA\nWell, I hate to disappoint some of the political pundits\nbut the relationship has always been cordial. It's always been very\nclose, it still is. And the visit we had for about an hour and a\nhalf there in the -- in the White House was on that same cordial\nbasis. And as I have said before, the President knows that I intend\nto lead a delegation at the Republican convention pledged to his\nrenomination for election.\nQ\nGovernor --\n-16-\nQ\nGovernor n change --\nQ\nCan I follow that. Did you tell the President pessonally\nthat -- that you intended to lead the delegation? You do not intend\nto run against him or for anything else? In '72.\nA\nI told him.\nQ\nYou did offer this to the President?\nA\nYes.\n0\nDid you or your staff have any discussions in Washington\non the possibility of expanding the role or the authority of the\nCoast Guard of the navigable waters and the right to shut them down?\nA\nThis subject never came up, no.\nD\nGovernor, regarding your visit to Washington. Do you feel\nnow that since you'velbeen back there that communications between\nSacramento and Washington are far superior to what they were before?\nDo you feel now that you have a direct link -- more so of a direct link\nto the President or to Secretary Richardson and if so, where was\nthe chink in the communications link before? Specifically on the\nAFDC difficulty?\nA\nWell, I think that that -- that one gew at a departmental\nlevel and certainly at a level below Elliott Richardson who came in\nnew to that position. As I explained to you in our press conference\nupstairs at the time when hhey were going to announce the cutoff of\nfunds, Elliott Richardson did not know, had been misinformed, he did\nnot know that there had not been a final court disposition of this\ncase. So the one thing that has been proved is I finally have met\nhim and, as I say, we had several hours together and I think got to\nknow each other well enough to know that we don't have any basic\nphilosophical disagreements at all and that he wants many of the same\nthings that we want in trying to get control of these programs, has\nthe same belief we do that they are -- not only in need of reform,\nthey are a disaster. And I think this will help. Now, as far as\nthe White House is concerned, let me just say this, one other thing.\nThere wasn't an improvement needed. From the very first the Vice\nPresident has been designated as the liaison between state and federal\ngovernment, and on those problems, particularly which must go to the\ncabinet level or to the President himself, and there has never been\nany problem of communication between us. The Vice President has\nbeen accessible. He has gotten back on every instance we have had\nto refer something to him. As a matter of fact he was the channel\n-17-\nwe went through on the eve of that aborted press conference, when\nthey were going to cut off funds and the -- this was when he put\nElliott Richardson in cantact with me immediately. He understood\nthe situation, and that's all it took, and the press conference was\ncancelled, and they didn't cut off the funds. There has been --\nthere has been a disagreement, one disagreement between the -- this\nadministration and the White House, which has had to do with a family\nassistance plan, and the President has been aware from the very first\nand we have talked about it, that we did not -- we were in favor of\nhis original concept. We did not feel that the legislation that\nsubsequently was passed by the House of Representatives actually\ncarried out the original purpose and intent.\n0\nGovernor, is there any --\nQ\nGovernor, how soon do you expect to call a special election\nto fill the State senate seat?\nA\nThere is a time limit in which I have to do this. I\nhaven't pressed on this. There's been a few other things happening,\nas you can imagine. We will get at this as quickly as we can. But\nwhen I fourd out that we couldn't under the law -- we couldn't pass\nit in time to get it on the ballot of the local election in Los\nAngeles, it legally could not be done, then the pressure was off a\nlittle bit because there was no way in which we could save themoney of\nof a special election by coupling it with them.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\noOo\n-18-\n2/4\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD FEBRUARY 4, 1971\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\no00\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Good morning.\n0\nGood morning.\nA\nI guess we've got nothing to talk about.\nQ\nGovernor, what assurances can you give that the counties\nwill not have to increase their costs by picking up the difference\nif your Medi-Cal and welfare reductions are passed as well as your\nproposed budget for public schools?\nA\nEvery assurance in the world. Because I've been disturbed\nabout the manner in which this has been fuzzed up and certainly\nthe leadership of the legislature, I regret to say, has apparently\nmisinterpreted our intention in providing a budget and having to\ntell them that we would come along in the next couple of weeks with\ndetailed explanations of how we would meet some of the cuts. But\nit's always been our determination that we will never pass a tax onto\nlocal government because this in our estimation doesn't answer the\nproblem to simply change the pocket out of which you take the money\nfrom the same individual. And so we have pledged that our proposals\nfor reform of welfare and Medi-Cal will be such that they will not\nonly save the state money, they will save the counties money and they\nwill save the federal government monies because they are going to\nreduce the welfare burden. And I think the latest finding of our\nown audit team that right now there is sufficient error at the county\nlevel in determining eligibility that we estimate overspending of\nabout $51 million dollars. Now, part of that $51 million dollars is\ncounty funds. I will call to your attention that a short time ago\nwe changed the regulations when we found we could to save an estimated\n75 million dollars of county administrative expense, in the staffing\nstandards for welfare, and SO far we know of 23 counties that have\n-1-\ntaken advantage of that and have changed their staffing standards.\nNow I just regret that the legislative leadership evidently --\nwhen we first met, when I met with Senator Mills and Assemblyman\nMoretti, they both -- I explained to them, they expressed their fears\nthat we would have to have an increased tax. I told them to please\nhold their fire until they saw our proposals because I honestly and\nsincerely believe that we can with their cooperation meet this\nproblem with no increase in taxes. And I think they have jumped\nat this budget perhaps under the mistaken belief that I'm not sincere\nin this and that I'm trying to put the tax monkey on their backs.\nI am not. I tell them again, if they will cooperate and meet with\nus I believe I can convince them that no tax increase is needed.\n0\nGovernor, how about -- how about the case of local schools\nwhere according to Allen Post your budget is more than a hundred\nmillion dollars short of just keeping up with inflation.\nA\nNo, once again we have -- we have increased the state fund-\ning for schools 42 per cent to match a 12 per cent increase in enroll-\nment over the last four years. Now I've said before that the\nlegislature and myself in passing on these additional funds to the\nschools each year, not one of us has been able to prove or say to\nthe public that we know for a fact this money is needed.\n85\ncents\nof every dollar the state has given to public education goes into\nsalary increases and we have had a task force working, as I have\nexplained over and over again to you, we have had this commission on\neducational reform and again this is like the welfare and Medi-Cal\nproposals. We believe that we found enough evidence that we can\nhelp the school boards to better spend the money they are now getting.\nAnd then in the event that this still reveals that additional money\nis needed, at least this time we would be able to put our finger\ndown and prove once and for all to the public that there was an actual\nneed for this money, it was not the result of mis-spending of the\nfunds. Added to this is the other thing that I think can be\nhelped by tax reform, the need for a statewide equalization formula.\nBut the money that we have put in actually meets the legislative\nrequirements, the formula for funding by the state, plus which we have\nadded in the $88 million dollar one-time kind of windfall or\nemergency gife that we gave public education last year, and we told\nthem then it would only be a one-year thing, but we have added it in\nand extended It another year, so they are getting that money over and\n-2-\nabove. Now, if the local school boards or districts chose to\nignore the help that can be given and that there are savings to be\nmade and simply take the easy way of wanting to turn to the property\ntaxpayer, we don't have much control over that. But I believe if\nthey will listen and if they will cooperate we can prove that we can\nmeet their financial needs and that there has been a misuse of the\nfunds they are getting.\n0\nGovernor, Allen Post said yesterday that your budget takes\ninto account inflation in calculating revenues but ignores inflation\nin calculating state spending and of course in state employees'\nsalaries. Can you comment on this apparent difference?\nA\nWell, sometimes I think Mr. Post's staff is more energetic\nthan it is efficient. There is no questirn but that we have,\nas I frankly stated, reduced and deferred some spending in some\nareas of state government which is very frankly belt-tightening and\nwhich is the same kind of economies that our people are going to\npractice in the present< of this inflation. We can't just automatically\nturn the burden over onto them. This part is true. But I noticed\nalso that Mr. Post, after he made his initial charges about the budget,\nhe then did recognize that he was making those charges in advance\nof seeing our proposals and without any knowledge as to whether the\nproposals would meet these problems and I think the proposals will.\n3\nGovernor, back to schools just for a moment, the type of\nhelp that you are willing to offer districts, is that just general\nhelp or do you have specific people who can -- if asked by the\ndistrict administration, come into a school district and show them\nhow to tighten up their problems?\nA\nYes, an auditing team and I think I was -- I know that\nWilson Riles in his position is concerned about this budgeting figure\nalso but I know his very strong feelings about the need for account-\nability on the part of schools. And I think we -- when we work\ntogether on some of these proposals -- I say we, I think can help in\nsome of the problems but at least then we can come to a point in\nwhich if more money is honestly needed for the first time the state\nwill be able to say, how much, and prove to the public that there\nis this need.\nQ\nGovernor, Mr. Orr suggested that your welfare message would\nbe coming very, very shortly. Can you give us an idea of when that\nmight be?\n-3-\nA\nNo. I'm going to be more cautious than bhat. We said\nwithin the next few weeks at the time we presented the budget and\nit will be that. I think you can understand -- we got a new team\nover there. They're members -- many of them members of the same task\nforce that's been working on this. It is a complicated business and\nwe are going to come forth with it just as fast as we can. Our\nsituation was, and we were very frank about this, the law calls\nfor us to submit a balanced budget. We submitted a balanced budget\nbut admittedly without the explanation of how some of the reductions\nwould be met. We promised that, the answer to that, and we will\nhave it\na\nGovernor, how would you balance your budget in the event\nthat the legislature refused to approve your welfare reforms or the\nfederal government refused to approve them or the courts refused to\nallow them to go into effect?\nA\nWell, just at this point I can't tell you how much of\nthis will be dependent on federal government. Mainly I think these\nare things that we can do statutorily and administratively. The\nlegislation is passed, of course. This lessens the danger from\nthe courts. Our problem has been the court's interpretation of\nexisting regulations and statutes. If the legislature refuses to\njoin in reforming welfare and Medi-Cal, then admittedly they have\nmade a choice and they have made a decision. I hope they won't\nbecause the choice they will have made is one that will leave them\nwith the prospect of tax increases on an annual or every other year\nbasis for as far as we can see into the future.\nQ\nGovernor, how do you justify using $126 million dollars\nin the recerve funds, including 72 million from the teachers'\nretirement to balance this budget in view of your previous criticism\nof this method of balancing the budget?\nA\nBecause as we have stated, this is a crisis in part of\nwhich is a temporary slupm in revenues that we can expect to go back\nup in the future as we come out of this -- out of this economic slump,\nand the contingency fund of the teachers is -- is actually -- it is\npaid for by the state and the state has responsibility for this fund\nand if there is a contingency the state has to pay for it anyway.\nSo we actually see no harm whatsoever and no setback in this program\nof the borrowing of those funds.\n-4-\nQ\nGovernor, do you think it is a misuse of new school state\naid to use that for teachers' salary increases?\nYou mentioned earlier that 85 per cent of the increases in school\naid go for teachers' salaries. Do you think that's a misuse of funds?\nA\nWell, not - teachers' salary increases are needed but at\nthe same time I think we should point out that the -- they can't have\nit both ways. They can't attack the state on the basis of its\ncontribution to education and say that it is shorting the quality of\neducation or increasing class size or doing any of these other things.\nAnd then continue to use the money almost entirely as a fund for\nincreasing salaries.\nQ\nGovernor, aren't -- while you are delaying your message\naren't you allowing this group that's going to run around the state\ntelling what's wrong on your budget jump on you before you get a\nchance to explain your position?\nA\nWell, this again I regret, Squire, the announcement that\nthey are going to run around and hold hearings. It seemed to\nme\nit would have been far more seemly if they had waited until they\nsaw the proposals and then wanted to include those in their hearings.\nI think the people are entitled to know clearly what it is that we\npropose and then I think in a system such as ours you would be able\nto read whether the public agrees that the economi/s ban be made or\nwhether they are willing to tax themselves at a higher level. And\nI think the announcement to suddenly go out on the basis of this\nbudget is again -- I regret to say, violating what I thought was a\nbi-partisan approach that we were all agreed-certainly the leadership\nof the other side was agreed with me, we would have in meeting these\nproblems. I still want that bi-partisan approach.\nQ\nGovernor, what was your --\nQ\nThe welfare program that you now say may not go to them\nI guess until March, you say a few weeks, would you expect this to\nbe adopted by June 30th when the budget has to be adopted or should\nbe adopted?\nA\nI don't see no reason why it shouldn't be. The budget has\nto be adopted then.\nQ\nHow many years have you been trying to get through a major\nwelfare reform?\n4\nWell, almost every year since I've been here except not\n-5-\nthis scale becaus ery frankly, as I have ad tted to you in this\nroom, in our efforts over these at least three years to get a handle\non these programs we ourselves were dealigg in almost bandaids.\nWe ourselves did not finally come down to the recognition that the\ntotal overhaul was needed.\nle started things that we thought would\nhelp and now we come with total overhaul. The other thing is that\nnever in the four years before have we come to such a crossroad in\nwhich the alternative is to ask the people for more money.\n8\nDo you have any reaction to Senator Alquist's statement\nthat the legislature forthwith pass your budget and send it back to\nyou as it stands?\nA\nWell, that is a little petulant on his part. And since\nwe have frankly stated that the -- that the means for balancing the\nbudget would require some legislation, if he means passing the budget'\nand automatically guaranteeing me now that they will pass the legis-\nlation, that goes with it, I'd be very happy to accept his offer.\nQ\nGovernor, have you specifically previowed the upcoming\nmessages to the legislature to President Nixon's office at all?\nA\nHad I previewed it?\nQ\nYes, in other words, you haven't yet presented to the --\nyour ideas to the legislature how you are going to make the cutbacks\nbut have you gone to -- when you were in Washington did you preview\nsome of your specific ideas? I know you discussed welfare\nreform and asked for the right to experiment.\nA\nOh, no, no, there was no opportunity and I wouldn't have\ntaken up his time because I wouldn't have had all the specifics\nthat\nQ\nA lot of this depends on the President's cooperation,\nisn't that right?\nA\nI don't know whether the President -- I had an opportunity\nto talk to Elliott Richardson , told him some of our views. He\nwas most interested and told me that when we are ready and when we\nare prepared, he asked me if I would send our people in to talk with\nhim because he wanted to hear exactly what it was we had in mind,\nand said he is looking himself for every suggestion he can get as to\nhow to get hold of it because he too recognizes that the program is a\ndisaster.\n8\nChange of subject.\nQ\nNo, I've got another question on this. Governor, when you\n-6-\nsay that it is not the State's intention to pass on the property tax\nincreases to local taxpayers, is this dependent on the Supervisors\nalso cutting welfare and Medi-Cal back approximately the same level\nas the State does?\nA\nWell, yes.\nQ\nDo the Supervisors have to take action on their own to do\nthis?\nA\nWell, they have to -- I think they have to conform. In\nother words, if we are -- let's say just in one facet, if we are talk-\ning about a ceiling on incomes above which no individual who is\nearning an income can receive welfare, if we are talking about\nreducing grants to those who have high earnings now and are also\nreceiving welfare, and remember at the same time and somehow this\nseems to have been overlooked in some of the more emotional outbursts\nof the last couple of days, we also have said it is a part of our\nwelfare reform that we recognize the necessity for increasing some\ngrants to those people who have no other source of revenue. Now,\nif the counties simply disagree with us and say that they believe\nthat someone who is earning above a certain figure should continue\nto get a welfare grant, then I have to say yes, they are on their own.\nBut we are talking about a welfare -- of a structure in which they\nwould continue to meet their obligation and responsibility as we\nwill anoiethe federal government will and all of us will be -- it\nwill be a reduced cost.\nQ\nGovernor Reagan, you've mentioned legislative criticism\nand yet Mr. Post yesterday said your budget is full of wishful\nthinking and might go down as the property tax increase act of 1971.\nHow do you answer these charges?\nA\nWell, I answer them again with what I said about his staff.\nI'm sorry that Mr. Post saw fit to come up and criticize this docu-\nment within the first 25 hours and admit himself that he had no idea\nof what it was we were going to propose or what the controls were and\nthat he was criticizing on the basis of the way it was presented.\nWell, in the way it was presented, yes, we simply said the budget\nwill be at \"x\" amount of dollars for welfare. But he's ignoring the\nfact that we have said we will come in and detail the manner in which\nwe will arrive at that lower figure, with the legislative help. And\nI have to say Mr. Post made some other statements in his testimony\n-7-\nthat ignored facts.\nQ\nWhat were those?\nA\nWell, I made some notes on some of them frankly.\n(Laughter)\nA\nHes criticism of education and so forth, and said that we\nwere taking advantage of the growth in local assessed evaluation\nin property taxes for public school aid, but he didn't recognize\nthat the state -- the slippage as it is called, is the law of the state\nand that the student funds -- or the state -- the budget funds that\nexist in the state law regarding the schools and at the end of the\nyear you are told how much is slippage. We simply estimated or\nfigured the slippage in advance as to what it would be. He said\nthat we were deleting a special math program. A special math\nprogram expires on June 30, 1971, and there was nothing to fund for\nthe coming year. He called a special -- he called on special\ndeficiencies with regard to the -- to capital funding of construction\nand apparently was counting in there the capital funding of the Medical\nschools that were supposed to be funded by a bond issue which failed.\nThe people voted against. We believe that our figures and our\nestimates are far more up to date than those that he used. As witness\none of his staff members the other day on Medi-Cal, it was just a\nshort time ago that Mr. Post was accusing us of hiding the $140\nmillion dollars Medi-Cal deficit. So he sent Mr. Cooley up the\nother day before the committee to testify that the deficit was only\ngoing to be half that much, and then Mr. Cooley without a single\nquestion as to where he got his basis for his facts, left the room.\nWithout we don't know where he got his so-called facts because we\nhave ours based on the actual figures for as late as these fall months.\nAnd we know that the budget deficit is $140 million dollars.\nQ\nGovernor, does it shake your confidence in the budget\nproposal that a man of Mr. Post's expertise and experience has such\nstrong criticisms of it?\nA\nNo, because if you check back, as I said over the last\ncouple of years, and I think this is probably much more due to some\nofhis eager staff members, you will find that many of his dire warnings\nhave not only been conflicting with his own dire warnings, but they\nhave proven inaccurate and in almost every instance our estimates\nhave been accurate and we have based these on not only good estimates\n-8-\nbut on the facts as we have them and he can't have it both ways.\nHe can't tell us that we are hiding $140 million dollar deficit and\nthen turn around to try to take a bow for telling us that the deficit\nis only half that Big. He can't tell us we are going to have a\n$750 million dollar deficit and then turn around and find more money.\nI remember just several months ago when we were being accused of\nhaving a $537 million dollar surplus, and it was only a few weeks\nlater that we were being charged by the same source with having a\n$300 million dollar deficit. So the sky hasn't fallen.\nQ\nGovernor, ever since Post has been legislative analyst,\nwhich has been 20 years, governors have been criticizing him but\nalways because he wanted to cut, trim and squeeze. Now you seem to\nbe criticizing him because he wants to spend. Why do you suppose\nthere has been this change in roles?\nA\nWell, maybe the difference is he's got a staff now. Yes,\nI've quoted him many times on things where he went into the budget\nand found a budgeted need and he explained where he could find that\nthis was not absolutely essential to the state and I've agreed with\nthose things. But I -- I do think this -- we are getting. into a\nphilosophical area here which I ddn't find him particularly getting\ninto in years past.\nQ\nGovernor, I'm confused about Mr. Post and his staff. Are\nyou saying that the recommendations that Mr. Post's staff makes are\nunrepresentative of -- that he doesn't stay behind them or that they\ndon't represent his feelings? What's the difference between staff?\nA\nI don't know. No, evidently -- perhaps he's putting\ntoo much of a reliance on staff information. Now we all have to\ndo that when you've got a staff and I just happen to say that most of\nthe time my staff has been right.\n8\nGovernor, don't you and Mr. Post have access to the SELLS\nbudget information, the same figures and statistics?\nA\nShould have. I don't think we ever attempted to hide\nanything from him.\nQ\nGovernor, if the legislature should refuse to approve your\nwelfare proposals and make that change and go for increased taxes,\nwhat would your course then be?\nA\nWhat could my course be? I'm responsible for a balanced\nbudget and they would have made a decision. Now, again, I a1d not\nsubmit this budget in this way to in some way make a tax increase fall\n-9-\non their backs. I am dedicated to the proposition that we don't\nneed a tax increase. We can, if they have got the guts, meet this\nproblem, and I want them to meet 1t, but so far they have made all\ntheir blasts since the budget was presented without the continuation\nof the kind of communication we have had for these last few weeks up\nuntil now without sitting down with me and finding out -- I think\nsome place along the line they have just assumed that like their\nbelief I share their belief about a tax increase and I'm trying to\nget out from under it myself. I am not.\n0\nDo you think it is time for you to go back upstairs and talk\nto Mr. Moretti about it?\nA\nI think this time I'll just call.\n8\nGovernor, did you sometime late -- or try to apply yourself-\nany increased pressure on the CRLA matter over Friday and Saturday?\nFriday it appeared that at least there was reason to think that your\nveto was going to be overridden.\nSaturdaya different course was\ntaken. Did you apply any pressure you hadn't applied before?\nA\nWell, there was an area of negotiation and let me explain\nit very simply. No question about it. The -- I think that some\nof you were misled by some 020 office leaks that were supposed to --\nthe leaks were deliberately supposed to be building pressure on the\nother side. The whole -- actually, what the negotiation was about\nwas once the issue was decided as to upholding the veto we recognized\nwithout their telling us that there had to be a transition period.\nThere are cases now in court, you couldn't just suddenly pull the\nrug and say it is all over as of tomorrow morning. And the\nnegotiations very frankly had to do with difference of opinion as to\nhow long the transition period had to be. We obviously felt that\nit could be consummated in a shorter period of time. They held out\nfor a longer period of time, which would have in our opinion\nvirtually have been a preservation of the status quo. And we finally\ncame to an agreement on the 6-month period with the conditions that\nmost people have overlooked, very stringent conditions that were put\non\nthis\nnew six-month grant. And yes, on Saturday, right up till\nthe finish there was much phoning back and forth with regard to\nthe -- the period of time, the conditions and so forth.\nQ\nDo the restrictions you refer to governor, apply to criminal\ncases and class action type things, is that what you are talking\nabout in the restrictions?\n-10-\nA\nThere's never been any outlawing of class action, but the\nthings that they were -- they were violating the law, criminal\naction, take a case of that kind, charging harrassment and so forth,\ninvolving themselves in labor disputes. They were all part --\nI understand there is three typewritten pages of conditions that were\nimposed on them.\n0\nGovernor, many of the things that CRLA did gained support\nfrom the courts in forcing the state to enforce its own laws and\npreventing the state from violating state laws. Do you suppose\nthat the AdjudiCare or whatever program follows CRLA will be as\naggressive as they were in forcing the state to obey its own laws\nin face of what happened to CRLA?\nA\nOf course you assume a premise that I won't agree with,\nthat sometimes this was forcing the state to obey its own laws. You\nare not going to expect me at this late date to start agreeing that\nall judicial decisions are right and I agree with them.\nQ\nAny one, for instance, the sanitation subject which you\nhave now embraced in the campaign of farmers provide sanitary sanita-\ntion facilities.\nA\nBut we always have -- we always have embraced this and we\nhave explained many times that there is a limit to the amount of\npolicing personnel which we have. Those are state laws that no one\never intended to neglect and I'll state right now that I believe our\nagriculture department under this administration has done more to try\nand enforce those and get agriculture cooperation than any\nadministration before us. But we frankly had to admit that where\nviolations occurred they were violations of the law. It didn't mean\nthat it was something that we endorsed. I would only point to the\ncooperative efforts that we have made with the private sector and\nwith OEO on migrant housing, to improve migrant housing in the farm\npeople\nSQUIRE: Any more questions?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well --\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\no0o\n-11-\n2/16\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD FEBRUARY 16, 1971\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is\nfurnished to the members of the Capitol Press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made and\nthere is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: We have some visitors this morning,\nHerb Jacobs, University of California, Berkeley, with some journalism\nstudents here. Welcome, glad to have you here again.\no\nCan you balance the budget without tax increases now that\nthere is a real possibility the earthquake damage is going to boost\nthe budget considerably?\nA\nWell, I think SO. So far we haven't seen anything that\nwould make that much difference. We are working -- we can't tell\nyou whatthe loses are, what the funding will be. We are working\nright now with the federal government in view of their new legisla-\ntion -- it is our information that there's been a great increase in\nthe various funds that are available from federal sources. I would\nalso pointout how much of this damage was done to public buildings,\nnot in the private sector. We will know more about what the loses\nare and what the reimbursement in federal programs will be very\nshortly. S1 aoo I can tell you is we will proceed on that basis,\nbut I don't see that this is going to materially affect the state\nrevenues.\nQ\nDo you have any information that the federal- the Small\nBusiness Administration which provides -- which administers the\ndisaster appropriations for small businesses, is broke and is it\ngoing to be able to help out?\nA\nNo, we have no such indication at all. As a matter of\nfact, federal representatives at our joint briefing last week sug-\ngested that Congress is very much of a mind to -- to do whatever has\nto be done.\nQ\nGovernor, do you feel that the government at either the\n-1-\nstate or the federal level has a responsibility to insure that\nprivate citizens don't get financially wiped out by disasters of this\nkind?\nA\nWell, now, I don't think -- I don't know whther I quite\nunderstand you.\n0\nThese proposals for statewide insurance programs financed\nby a fund -- of public monies suggesting that the state government\nhas some responsibility to help people, private people, either by loans\nor by grants or some -- some means of that sort when disasters of\nthis kind strike them. Do you think that this government does have\nsuch a responsibility?\nA\nWell you are asking a -- I think kind of a hypothetical\nquestion. I'd want to see what some of the proposals were, what\nthe capacity would be of government. I think morally all of us\nhave shown in any kind of disaster that's ever taken poace, not only\nin this country but the restiof: the world, a determination to help\nto the best of our ability and people are already doing that. Churche\nthis Sunday in Los Angeles, and I'm sure perhaps all over the state,\nthere were great calls for voluntary contributions. The Red Cross\nis centering on an effort of that kind right now. I know that\nin other parts of the country, calls and pleas have been made through\nthe media for contributions for earthquake relief in California.\n0\nThat's a short term kind of relief. What we are talking\nhere is a situation where somebody's house is destroyed or business\nis destroyed completely add he faces a prospect of spending his life\npaying back a loan to --\nA\nWell, you've got the federal government right now with\nthe Small Business Administration loan, not only for businesses but\nfor homes, and the farm loan -- home loan mortgage does the same\nthing. I don't know that government ever could just simply assume\nthe burden of insuring against disaster to everyone of every kind.\nI wouldn't know where exactly you could stop that.\nQ\nMay we change the subject, Governor?\nQ\nI have -- Senate Finance this morning passed a bill\nincreasing the gasoline tax by one penny to help pay for this. Will\nyou support this measure and what other state financial aid do you\nforesee being pumped into Los Angeles?\nA\nWell, as I say, we are dealing now -- I think that the\ngreatest source of revenue from that is going to come from the federal\ngovernment on these. Obviously -- and they have a program for\nrestoration of public buildings.\nOn the one cent gas tax increase,\nwe don't have the information yet that that is needed and we are --\nwe are working very hard to get the figures and to know whethor it\nwill be needed or not. But certainly if this is needed, as WO have\ndone it before, then as I said before, I would have no objection to\nthis at all. But --\nQ\nHow soon do you --\nA\nI still do think that we need to find out the actual\nextent of the damage, what the resources are, before we automatically\nturn to the people which seems to be the overpowering urge of some\nin government, to immediately think the answer to everything is to\nthrow some more money at it and raise taxes. It seems to be an\nirresistible impulse on the part of some.\nQ\nYou will sign the bill if the money. is needed?\nA\nIf it is needed, yes.\nQ\nGovernor, on that earthquake and your budget, the other\nside of -- you mentioned that you don't see any problems with the\nfunds for the damages as it seems to be today. But what about the\nother side of. the equation, the revenue side? The State Controller\nsays, for example, that private property damage estimates can -- can\nbe deductible this year from this year's income tax. Will this\naffect your surplus?\nA\nWell, as I say, this is -- while it is a great loss to the\npeople actually involved, the private property loss, I don't believe\nwhen you figure a program as big as our tax program is in this\nstate, that that's going to make an appreciable dent.\nQ\nGovernor, the Controller said that the deductions would\nprobably eat up all, if not more than, the surplus in the General\nFund.\nA\nThat's possible. Maybe he's been figuring it closer more\nthan I have. I've been waiting to find out what the -- what the\nactual figures and the actual loss are.\nQ\nGovernor, this morning we understand you made the National\nGuardsman available to 10 schools in San Fernando Valley for carrying\nwater.\nWill you give us your background on this, why this is neces-\nsary.\n-3-\nA\nThere is an area there that the mains are out and a lot\nof this was tied in with the draining of the -- the Van Norman Reser-\nvoir and National Guard trucks as well as I think other agencies,\nwere bringing water in there by truck and I assume this is what you\nmean.\n0\nAny estimate on how long this will continue? When will\nwater be restored?\nA\nI think we will have to find out from the Department of\nWater and Power in Los Angeles.\nMR. MEESE: Probably the rest of the week anyway.\nA\nThe rest of the week.\nQ\nGovernor, to change the subject, there seems to be a growing\nmove in Congress to substitute federalized welfare for the revenue\nsharing. How do you view this?\nA\nWell, if they mean federalized welfare and the federal\ngovernment running it, I don't think their present experience with\nwelfare exactly qualifies them as the best to do it. I have always\nfelt that welfare is something that should be managed and administered\nat the local level of government, the county level as it is done now.\nI think the great fault with welfare being administered by the\ncounties is the 1 position on the counties of both state and federal\nregulations that don't give them or allow them any elasticity, any\nflexibility in handling the programs. I know that the professional\nwelfare workers union has always favored a federalizing of the pro-\ngram. They would prefer to be federal employees and not subject\nto local control, and this doesn't exactly cause me to -- to look\nwith joy upon such a thing. I don't think that the federal govern-\nment is capable of running or administering a program determined\nat federal level for all the people of the United States out here at\nthe very fringes of the country and able to do it as well as local\ngovernment can do it.\nQ\nWill you accept federal funding as a substitute for revenue\nsharing?\nA\nYes, because the federal government has usurped so much of\nthe taxing authority of local government. The ideal would be if the\nfederal government would simply transfer some of these reponsibilities\nto the states and local government and at the same time turn back\nto us sources of taxation they have pre-empted. I don't think\nthat's the (millenium ?). I don't think thatswill ever happen so\nthe next best step, I think, is the revenue sharing as the President\noutlined it to give the money and also give back. the responsibility\nto local government.\n8\nGovernor, this morning on the subject of welfare, the\nController says until you get your welfare message before the legis-\nlature it isgoing to be difficult to proceed with really doing anything\non the budget.\nA\nWell, that's true but I think there will be enough time\nleft. We are working night and ay on this, the welfare and Medi-\nCal reform proposals. We want to come forward, it is going to be\nvery complicated legislation. It isn't going to be just an omnibus\npackage, there are going to have to be a number of bills. We are\nworking with the county officials on this. We also have to be\nworking with the federal government in the proposals we make and\nI think that we will have the proposals and the message before the\nlegislature with plenty of time for them to do whatever they need to\ndo.\nD\nHave you set a date, Governor?\nA\nNot exactly, no\nQ\nTarget date?\nQ\nWill the start of this legislature be this week?\nA\nWeill the message to the legislature come this week? No,\nI can tell you that it won't this week.\n8\nWell, Governor, how much time do you feel the legislature\nshould have to handle the package? Mr. Fluornoy said this morning\nif you did it right now they'd only have 90 days including Saturdays\nand Sundays.\nA\nNo, I think they will have more than 90 days and I think\nfour months is enough for them to do something.\n8\nWell, he added 30 days --\nA\nI think there will be plenty of time for them to do all\nof this. As I say, we are doing our best to come in with this\nprogram. There are a number of alternatives that have to be decided\non, something like tax reform in that regard, you come down with a\nvariety of choises and you seek out the best alternatives.\nQ\nWell, Governor, this isn't exactly a new problem and the\nfinance problem isn't a new problem. What's taken so long to develop\n-5a-\nthis program?\nA\nWell, it is the desire to have a reform and not another\nband-aid application. As you know, we have had for some months a\ntask force working. Well, we also had three various task forces\nworking on tax reform before we came in with a program. Now we\nhave new personnel over in the welfare department and we intend to\ncome forward with, as I say, a complete reform.\nD\nGovernor, that task force report came in in time to go in\nthe budget, according to the testimony given before a subcommittee\nlast week. That makes it two months old at least.\nA\nNo, no, the tank force report that came in presented just\nas the tax reform idea. It came in with alternatives, decisions\nthat had to be made, decisions that had to be made not just simply\nimposed on others, but that we wanted to talk in concert with\ncounty officials also because we are administering the program,\nsharing in its cost, SO all of this is going forward and as I say it\nis a night and day process. As a matter of fact we are working now\nlike the legislature works in the last three weeks.\nD\nAre you consulting with the legislative leadership as this\nis developed?\nA\nWe will be in consultation with the legislative leadership.\nI can't tell you exactly whether there have been meetings as yet with\nthem or not.\na\nGovernor, this variety of choice and alternatives you speak\nof, are you trying to decide among them or are you going to send a\nbunch of alternatives to the legislature and let them decide?\nA\nNo, we will send legislation.\nQ\nAnd do you have a target date, a deadline for getting\nyour bills in or for starting to get them in, or even your message?\nA\nNo, I keep getting caught, it won't be this week.\n8\nI heard that.\nMR. MEESE: Shortly.\nA\nVery shortly. That's it, that's a good word.\nQ\nGovernor, do you think the Controller was unfair this\nmorning when he said he was very unhappy that you had not yet sub-\nmitted the welfare package?\nA\nWell, I don't know about his unhappiness. I'm sorry\nif we have spoiled his week-end. I'm unhappy, too. I wish we could\nhave had it with the budget message.\nWe\nwould\nhave\nliked\nto\nhave\nbeen able to present it then. Would have liked to have been able\nto present it before with the State of the State.\nD\nWhat -- Governor, what do you think of Mr. Burton's plan\nto fix up what you call the Mickey Mouse thing in the present law\nas far as Medi-Cal? The thing that triggered this ten per cent cut.\nUnder his bill it is it just goes on a cash basis and you run out of\nmoney, you run out of money, and themprovide what's needed.\nA\nYes, I think -- I have to suspect that perhaps what Mr.\nBurton has in mind is that if he could force us to not make the cuts\nin Medi-Cal that we have mandated on us by the legislature, they\npassed in 1967, that then we would go down to about May at which point\nwe would run out of money and no one would be getting Medi-Cal, and\nthen of course they would be faced with the alternative of doing\nwithout or increasing taxes. And since I believe that reform can\neliminate the possibility of increasing taxes, I think that the cuts\nthat we have made are taking hold and they are cutting the deficit and\nI hope everyone now is confident tn their own minds after all of\nthe various speculations that we were right and we had an independent\naudit and the actual Medi-Cal deficit that we face was 137 million\ndollars. We have been using the round figure of 140, and I think\n137 by actual outside audit is pretty close.\nQ\nNo one seems to know, though, whether these cuts are\nactually saving you much money. Is there still the threat of the\nnext shoe might drop cutting off the medically needy?\nA\nNo, I think that they are making it so far. Every evidence\nseems to be that we will be able to just about come out from under.\nQ\nGovernor, you said your welfare proposals included several\nalternatives. How then were you able to arrive at a fixed figure\nin your budget?\nA\nWell, when you arrive at figures you -- I can tell you that\nwe take the most conservative -- in other words, we don't go overboard\nand estimate a great figure optimistically hoping that this will be\ndone on the basis of case histories, case load and so forth, we try to\ncome out with a figure and then we take the most conservative making\nan allowance -- a very generous allowance so that we won't be caught\nshort finding that the savings haven't been that much.\n8\nWell, then, does that mean it is possible that the program\nyou might submit will actually save more money than your hudget?\n-7-\nA\nThat's a possibility we hope for.\nQ\nAnd that conservative figure then is about 600 million\ndollars for state, county and federal funds?\nA\nUh-huh.\nQ\nGovernor, if the Curton bill passes will you sign it or\ncan you see any ciscumstances under which you would?\nA\nWell, now, you get me to that old question that I always\ntry not to answer for any of you as to whether I will sign or veto\na bill. I can only tell you that I think Mr. Burton's intent was\nto bring us to the end of the funds before the end of the year and\nfaced with no choice but tax increase.\n0\nCan you see any circumstances under which you would sign\nit?\nA\nOh, if -- by the time it came down there our savings\nfrom those cuts had already cleared the budget, then there would\nno -- as a matter of fact, under the present law once out of the\nhole we couldn't mandate those cuts anyway.\n2\nAnother topic. Just one other.\n8\nYou've said you were unalterably opposed to tax increases to\n(budget)\ncover this deficit.\nIs that still your position?\nA\nYes, because I don't think it is needed.\nQ\nRevenue and Taxation Committee hf the Assembly yesterday\npassed a constitutional amendment out which would boducod = a majority\nof 50 per cent for bank and corporations taxes. Has your position\non this changed in any way?\nA\nWell, I still prefer the one that I said last year. I've\nnever been able to understand why the Constitution provided that\nbanks and corporations were protected by requiring a two-thirds vote\nto increase their taxes and the rest of the people could be taxed\non a 50-per cent vote plus one. And my approach last year in tax\nreform was to make all tax increases require a two-thirds vote.\nI'd still prefer that, and again I think this is a case of the\nphilosophical difference between some of those and -- upstairs and\nmyself, that they want to make it easier to raise taxes and I want to\nmake it harder.\nQ\nGovernor, Assemblyman McCarthy said he would not object\nto having both questions put on the ballot SO that the people could\ndecide whether to have all taxes at 50 per cent or all taxes at two-\nthirds vote.\n-8-\nA\nBless him.\nQ\nWould you agree with that?\nA\nI'd let the people make that choice, yes.\n0\nWhen you said you didn't understand how that two-thirds\ngot in there, it didn't mean you didn't understand the politics of\nhow, you understand how it got into the Constitution?\nA\nWell, it is another one of those things that I think explains\nwhy we have a constitutional reform commission.\nQ\nGovernor, what special qualifications did Senator Burns\nhave tommake you appoint him to the Liquor Control Board?\n(Laughter)\nA\nWell, I think here is a man with a distinguished record\nas a leader in the Senate, the President Pro Tem of the Senate with\na long record here. You think men of this kind, not only Senator\nBurns, but others, I think there are occasions when a man who wants to\nstay in government, not in the elective process, it is quite a\ntradition of utilizing their vast experience, and I think he's had\nvast experience that qualified him for this field.\n(Laughter)\nQc\nThere are quite a few other former legislators around\nwaiting for appointments. There are some others, for example\nAssemblyman Mulford, I heard the other day ha's not going to get an\nappointment, he's around a long time.\nA\nI can't tell you who is or isn't, but I can tell you 1-\nCalifornia we don't have very much of a spoil system. You don't\nhave too many appointments tomake, but we do have under consideration\nalong with him others, a number of former legislators.\nQ\nYou consider the ABC Appeals Board part of the spoils\nsystem?\nA\nWell, now, I use the term \"spoils system\" meaning the\nability to appoint without the fixed civil service requirement of\ngovernment, and this happens to be one of the commissions that the\nGovernor can appoint to. Now, I know the spoils system has a conno-\ntation in many people's minds of somehow being evil, but every govern-\nment that I know of has certain exempt positions the Chief Executive\ncan appoint\nIn California it is must more limited than it is in\na great many other states, ever since the Hiram Johnson reform era.\nI'm not complaining about it.\nThat's good.\n-9-\nQ\nGovernor, did the revalatines made last week about President\nNixon's cousin, about the help he got from CRLA change your view at\nall about that insti tution?\nA\nAbout CRLA?\nQ\nYes.\nA\nNo, I think the very fact that CRLA got a hold of those\nunfortunate people and persuaded them to: make themselves available\nto the press on this issue is just reinforcement for my opinion of\nCRLA. It doesn't serve the poor, it uses them.\nD\nThey said that they had been served, though, by CRLA,\nand they gave --\nA\nOh, I'm sure there are people who have been served and I\nthink I've made it plain from the very first that you can't say there\nhaven't been cases legitimately handled in there but the over-all\nbalance of the program warranted the veto and I think the evidence\nof that is that the veto was upheld.\na\nGovernor, what is your comment on the environmental\nquality study council's report that smog is a clear and present\ndanger in California and how do you square that with your statement\nto us within the last year that we have turned the corner on reducing\nsmog in the Los Angeles Basin?\nA\nWell, I think that's bee explained before. When I made\nthat statement I made it on the basis that there actually had been\na reduction back to about the 1960 or 162 level in hydrocarbons and\ncarbon monoxide. Subsequently-+thio was a report on those two --\nI had a briefing on oxides of nitrogen which have increased and which we\nnow know and did not know sometime ago were also a factor in smog.\nI do think that we are gaining -- we have to run to keep even\nbecause of the increase in the number of cars in a state that has the\ngrowth rate that we have, but as to the general question about the\nenvironmental commission report, I haven't had a change to get at\nthat. And it was -- I think I was rather low on the list for\ndissemination of the report, but now it has reached my office SO\nI'll be getting into it.\nQ\nThe clear and present danger, though, doesn't that sort of\nlanguage worry you and doesn't it call for some drastic action?\nA\nWell, first of all, it can't add anything additional to my\nworry because if there's anybody in this state that hasn't recognized\nit as a clear and present danger, they must have been living out in\n-10-\nthe valley some place, in the mountains. I don't think any of us\nhave ever pretended that it is nota clear and present danger from\nthis. As long as you have people whose health is affected, they\nhave been -- as long as you know that an unusual weather period such\nas we had last summer can multiply the effect of smog and make it\nin the same area with no additional smog sources -- can make it several\ntimes as bad as it was in the previous season, you have to guard\nagainst this. We know that the killer smogs in the east and\nPennsylvania some years ago didn't occur because there was a sudden\nupsurge in the polmutants in the area, it occurred because of\na weather factor and this always hangs over us, just as earthquakes hang\nover us.\nQ\nSo you feel your administration is doing enough?\nA\nWe are doing all that I think can be done at the present time\nbut we are -- when I say that, that includes a constant research\nfor more that we can do.\nQ\nGovernor, do you precude limits on growth or pppulation\nin industry and residential developments in an area from solutions\nto smog?\nA\nWell, again you are getting me into details, I haven't\nseen their report as yet. I would think that that would be such\na drastic change in our whole national policy, the freedom of people\nto move and to. live where they want to live, that you would want\nto be -- if you ever embarked on that you'd want to be very sure\nthat it was an absolute necessity from the standpoint of protection\nof the citizens' health and life.\nQ\nGovernor, have you decided yet on the election date for that\nSenate district down south?\nA\nI'Mad a talk with Mr. Roberti about this and I am just as\nanxious as he is to get this election announced and get it held.\nI think I have some bases to touch, particularly the people there in\nthe community also, and I explained to him I just haven't been able\nto do this with some of the things that have happened. I hadn't\ncounted on the most recent happening to alter my schedule and change\nsome of the meetings. As a matter of fact, I had some meetings\nscheduled on this subject that had to be cancelled because of the\nearthquake.\nQ\nHave the Los Angeles Supervisors, who pay for the bill,\n-11-\nasked for the election?\nA\nNo.\n6)\nSometime ago, Governor, you said we thought we turned the\ncorner on smog in the Los Angeles Basin. Did I understand you this\nmorning, you have to run to keep up now, you no longer feel that way?\nA\nNo, I think the fact that we are actually decreasing the amou\nof smog that is emitted from both stationary and moving sources is in\neffect a turning of the corner. The fact that we know that each\nyear the automobiles that are put on the road, and that are sold in\nCalifornia will be emitting less smog than their predecessors is\na turning of corner. You refer to that when you say turning a corner,\nback to a day when once conscious of smog and Dr. Hagensmhmidt having\nfinally discovered the mamor source, the automobile, that you knew\nthat the automobiles were -- if anything, increasing in the amount\nof pollutants instead of decreasing. But for several years now we\nhave begun with plans that are taking hold much faster and the\npresent day automobile is emitting only a fraction of what the earlier\nones did. One of our great problems, you talk about how far can\nyou go in solving something, one of the great problems in California\nis that we have a higher percentage of old cars on our highways than\nin most other states. Our salmbrious climate out here makes them\nlast longer and I have wondered at times if we -- if we aren't going\nto come to a point where we are going to have to take a look at the\npossibility of funding and junking cars older than a certain age.\nSQUIRE: Any more questions? Thank you, Governor.\ndoo\n-12-"
}