Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564120
label
Transcripts - 02/16/1972, 02/29/1972, 03/07/1972, 03/21/1972
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564120
contentType
document
title
Transcripts - 02/16/1972, 02/29/1972, 03/07/1972, 03/21/1972
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Press Conference Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564120
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
83373867b260ed5c
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual
collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Press Conference Transcripts -
02/16/1972, 02/29/1972, 03/07/1972, 03/21/1972
Box: P03
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at:
[email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
91/2
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD FEBRUARY 16, 1972
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is
furnished to the members of the Capitbl press corps for their conven-
ience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly as
possible after the conference, no corrections aremmade and there is no
guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
000
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Good morning.
Q. Governor, Angela Davis has told the Superior Court in San Jose
that she intends to subpoena you to ask you what part you played in
an alleged conspiracy against her and Black people in general.
Would you honor that subpodna or would you fight it and what do you
think about her comspiracy charge?
A. I'd have to get leval advise on that. I don't know what you do
with regard to subpoenas of that kind, but I -- I don't take it very
seriously. Certainly there has been no conspiracy foranyone to
participate in.
a.
I.
If you got subpoenaed you would take it seriously,
wouldn't you?
A.
What?
Q.
If you got subpoenaed you would take it seriously.
A.
That's right, turn to my leval advisors and say, "What do
I do about this?"
Q.
Governor, do you favor -- do you favor amnesty for draft
resistors who have fled to other countires and there is a proposal
in Congress now to grant them amnesty. How do you feel about this?
A.
No, I don't, and I think when amnesty is considered it should
be considered on an individual base. I'm quite sure there are some
people who very sincerely took this action and believed in what they
were doing. I think this should be taken into consideration. I
think there are others who just plain were devout cowards and ducked
out and I don't think a blanket rule of this kind would be proper.
A great many young men who probably disagreed with that war went over
add served and some were killed and some were wounded, and I think we'd
be setting a very bad precedent if you said to anyone that they could
duck out on anything on the ground that they disagreed with it and then
everything would be forgiven.
-1-
Q.
Governor
Q.
Same subject. Because it is not really a precedent, it's
happened during the Civil War and wars before.
A.
Well, I think when you talk about the Civil War you are talk-
ing about a case there of -- of a war and of a victorious side, that
granted amnesty to men not who refused to serve but men who with
their own sincere belief fought on the othersside, And I think there
is a great difference between that and between allowing the average
citizen to simply decide which laws he will obey and which he will
avoid. I'm quite sure there are a great many peopèe in this country
who could think of a number of government requirements that they would
like to ignore.
Q.
Governor, do you favor a constitutional amendment to prohibit
busing in the schools?
A.
Well, I'm heartily in favor of the -- what the President is
doing in trying to find an answer to this problem and have so written
him, rmy support in what he's doing. I don't know that he -- that
a
constitutional amendment is the answer or whether it can be handled
within our present law or statutorily, and I just -- I am opposed to
mandatory busing myself. I do -- I believe it's been nonproductive.
I believe it has created more bitterness rather than healing the
divisions that we are trying to heal. And so I support the President's
search in the meeting that he's having with his cabinet committee in
finding an answer to the problem.
Q.
But you have not made up your mind on the amendment, the
constitution?
A.
No, because I -- I just don't know whether that is required
or whether that is the best way or not.
Q.
Governor, aside from having some criticism of your
catastrophic health plan, some of the Democratic leaders are proposing
a broader state health plan. Would there be room for compromise between
your plan and their proposals?
A.
Oh, we: listen to any idea but I'm quite sure that some
of them are thinking of a braader plan. I'm sure some of them are
thinking about outright socialized medicine. As a matter of fact, there's
been quite a wave of this going on in Washington right now. Senator
Kennedy's proposals. I don't believe in socialized medicine, even
when you call it nationalized health insurance. We are trying to
meet a problem that affects the working men and women, so-called middle
class, the people that are paying the freight and supporting government
in all its social reforms, yet who can be wiped out economically and
whole family life destroyed by catastrophic illness or serious acci-
dent. So, of course, I'm sure that there will be those that would
like to broaden it to the kind of medical programthat I just mentioned.
But I believe we have made a proposal, this is why I announced it to
the people, that will not do what a number of other government programs
have done, and that is inflate the cost of medical care but will offer
a protection at an amount that is so low that you could not achieve
that protection on a voluntary basis. I am not one who normally
wants to see the government mandating. This is why I -- explained
to the people in the announcement that I've already made, this is
one of those cases where the government has proposed to the people
a service that can be rendered, does require it to be mandatory, and
we have told them what the charge would be and the people can make up
their minds and thus influence their legislators on the basis of whether
they think that it is worth the charge.
Q.
Governor, philosophically, what's the difference between
taking this step you are proposing and going all the way, so to speak,
in having a state administered broad insurance policy to cover all
medical expenses?
A.
Well, because I just don't think that -- I think that govern-
ment should do those things that the people cannot otherwise do for
themselves. And I think this is one of those instances. It is
impossible on a voluntary basis except at a tremendously high premium
for private insurance to offer this kind of protection. We are
talking about a limited number of people each year who have within
their family an illness or an accident that averages -- averages in
cost $25,000 a year. Sometimes ittgoes as high as $100,000 a year,
but the average is $25,000. Private insurance could not, as I say,
offer this except a/ a premium so high that only the wealthy could
afford it. And the wealthy are not the ones who particularly have
this need. Now, the lowest economic level is provided for by Medi-Cal.
The most affluent, we believe, can take care of themselves, but the
working men and women, the ones that every once in a while there is
hardly a month goes by that you don't pick up and read some story about
some citizen, some working citizen faced with this who has had to sell
his home and cash in his insurance if he had any, and then you say,
"What does he do next year," because this goes on through the years.
And we have worked long and hard at this, we believe we have come up
with a proposal, we are willing to aceept any improvements to it.
-3-
But we have come up th a proposal that will ac it on top of the
insurance that people are carrying -- about 85 to 90 per cent of our
people are now carrying some form of health insurance, added on will
meet that problem.
Q.
Governor, the booklet on the -- the brochure that came out
yesterday, the first part of it reads like an insurance agen'ts
presentation. What industry input did you have, who helped prepare
this?
A.
You will have to ask Earl Brian.
Q.
We understand that it came from the Governor's office.
A.
Well, I know that we have been working with outside help.
We had actuarial help in arriving at the figures on this. We have
had input from a number of people in arriving at this plan. Now, who
actually sat down and drew up that book, I haven't gotten into that.
MR. MEESE: Governor, it was done by the Department iself
with consultation, with the cooperation of the Governor's office and
the cabinet. There was no industry, per se, input into the prepara-
tion of the booklet.
Q.
Governor, you said that you feel that your program won't
inflate medical costs. But does it have in it any specific provisions
that put any kind of ceiling or control on that cost?
A.
No. Is one needed? What we are talking about is so often
these broad plans like Medi-Cal, for example, without any -- when
this program prior to our reforms had no restrictions on use, what
you simply did was increase the demand with no provision for increasing
the supply. Now, this hasn't been done here. You have a case of
"x" number of people in these illnesses, they are cared for now. So
we are not doing anything here with a program that is suddenly going
to increase the demand. We know approximately how many catastrophic
cases there are a year and catastrophic illness itself makes it plain
that there isn't someone lying over here endlessly for years without
getting the medical attention they need.
Q.
Governor, Senator Moscone has slaimed that your plan would
be what he calls a boondoggle for private insurance companies. What
about that?
A.
Well, Senator Moscone is very often mistaken at the top of
his voice. And he's mistaken once again. This cannot possibly be
a boondoggle. The figures actuarily work out that this program
provides for a sum of money that meets the situation as we know it
-4-
exists now, in cata. rophic illness plus a smal. surplus which wisdom
says you should have, plus a reasonable amount of money for administra-
tive costs, but more important this money is in a state fund. It is
not turned over to private insurance companies where they would have
this money available in the meantime to invest and make money on this
pool of money. There is no way in the world that there could be a
boondoggle for insurance companies.
Q.
Governor, Senator Moscone says that your plan amounts to an
$8,000 deductible and that there is no provision in there for preventive
medicine. How would you respond to those cases?
A.
Well, again I think that Senator Moscone is dreaming of
programs that would be far beyond taking care of a particular problem,
catastrophic illness. The so-called $8,000 threshold, yes, there
is for a person that is non-insured. But we are talking about 85 to
90 per cent of ourppeople that would go through their regular health
insurance that they now have and coming to the end of that would then
be provided, if it was necessary, in those cases this catastrophic
illness, whatever the cost might be, with no ceiling on it, whatsoever.
There is no such insurance today any place in the world. This would --
this would go on. New, the person who has no insurance, who perhaps
feels e-cdoesn't feel the need for it, has enough income or affluence
that without insurance feels he can provide for himself, this person
as an earner would be covered and his family. So to implement his
it would require that this individual spend up to $8,000 himself before
he then becomes eligible for this ongoing tremendous cost and the --
the difference in that would be that if you don't have that, if you
try to cover from the beginning on everyone, again you get into an
exorbitant premium, a change against the people that is unwarranted
based on the actuarial statistics, the figure of how many people this
is going to happen to.
Q.
Governor, how many programs, health programs that people
hold now are liable to qualify as basic health plans under your bill
and are any people liable to have to switch programs because they dontt
qualify?
A.
Well, I have somebody here who could answer that very --
not only the author of the bill, but I have Dr. Brian here who could
answer on that because it is true that a part of this that's been
neglected in some of the accounts so far, and he's trying to make
plain is yes, we are going to induce people to have a better health
-5-
coverage than they ha
Now you fill in if I
SS on this, there
are a great many health insurance plans that have great restrictions
and don't go up as far as what we would consider the approved plan,
but the approved plans in those insurance companies that will write
insurance up to covering, say, that $8,000 figure, we will offer an
inducement in that they well get a $300 deduction in their state income
tax for having that kind of insurance. Is there anything that needs --
MR. BRIAN: Governor, the only other point is it is totally
voluntary. Some persons not wishing to switch don't have to. But
as we said yesterday, the e's 700 insurance companies providing 18,000
different plans. Most of the better known plans with minor modifica-
tions, if any. are needed, will qualify as a basic approved plan, but
again the choise is left up to the individual purchasing the plan.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: If he wants to gamble on a lesser plan
in that he would fill in that balance of $8,000 himself, 1f it should
happen to him, and then go to this other, that's up to him.
Q.
You said you know how many cases there are of this type of
catastrophic illness. How many are there and about what is the cost
for each year to cover them?
A.
They run -- roughly the avarage is 10,000 catastrophic cases
in California a year, at an average cost of $25,000 a year.
Q.
Governor Reagan, philesophically, what's the 'ifference between
a state mandated plan and a nationalized plan?
A.
Well, when we talk nationalized health insurance we are
talking about those people who would like to take something comparable
to Medi-Cal and just simply cover everybody regardness of need. Force
you into that plan. Eliminate the need for private insurance and
literally -- well, what we see in England, they call it nationalized
health insurance, in which you have socialized medicine and in England
you have bery little choice of dottor and you have all the rules and
the regulations that are set down and the doctor in effect becomes
an employee of the government. And this is the thing that many people
in this country believe we should turn to and yet the -- the plain
truth is medicine as it is practiced in the United States today has
reached the highest level of medical care any place in the world and
there isn't any country with socialized medicine that can begin to
compare with what we have in this country under our private system.
Q.
Governor, is one of the things you are willing to consider
changing this $8,000 figure? I mean would you lower that down?
A.
No, if you -- if you lower that figure down, the $8,000 figure
-6-
down, then you --
tl.
$36 goes out the window,
nd
you
have
to
begin raising this mandatory fee.
Q.
Governor --
DD. BRIAN:
Governor, there is also no reason to lower
the $8,000 figure because the basic plans build a floor under it and
these plans come up to that particular level and this is how this
significantly differs from other catastrophic plans. 23 basic
---
GOVERNOR REAGAN: The basic -- the approved Insurance plans
as Dr. Brian says, they now bring you up to that point so that the
average person with that kind of a plan would -- there would be no
difference, he would just simply keep on going if the case was
catastrophic.
Q.
This $8,000 is any one illness by any one member?
DR. BRIAN: This --
Q.
Of a family.
DR.
BRIAN: This $8,000 is an annual expenditure by an
individual for any number of illnesses. But again, I'd point out the
$8,000 will relate to a relatively small number of people and the
primary interest is the basic health plan.
Q.
I wanted to ask, it doesn't cover the deductible in any way --
most of these plans you are talking about have deductibles, some of
them very substantial, which you would pay out of your own pocket.
DR. BRIAN: Correett.
Q.
You'll still do that?
DR. BRIAN: Correct.
Q.
This plan will not cover that in any way except that when
the Blue Cross, say, contribution and your contribution totals $8,000
then you would be picked up under the catastrophic?
DR. BRIAN: No, the chances are if you had Blue Cross plan,
regardless of the contribution, the contribution may well exceed
$8,000, the $8,000 corridor does not apply. That's a service entry
mechanism for Blue Cross type plans. If you didn't have insurance
and you had a very marginal plan, then you would talk about the
$8,000 corridor. Remember, the $8,000 corridor only applies to relative
small number of people, generally, that aren't insured at all or
have a very minimal plan, so there is a big difference in there.
A.
Earl, I think what he's meaning is those that do have
deductible, I think it is in our plan that it will only be what they
receive from their insurance, but what they themselves spenti added
together would be $8,000, it would be the total of that spending that
would be the threshc
DR. BRIAN: Yes, sir, the point I was trying to make to Jack
was that most plans have some sort of deductibles and copayments,
these are basic plans. Now, the expenditure by the person reaching
the $8,000 limit for those plans does not apply in this case, to
speak of, because they are talking about entering on a service basis
rather thanaa money basis. We are only talking about expenditures
in those people who really don't have insurance or have a marginal
type 6f plan. So if you had a Blue Cross plan, for example, that
met those service standards of a basic plan, sure,dyou may have some
deductibles in co-insurance, but you'd get in regardless of the deduct-
ibles and co-insurance once you exhausted the plan benefits. For
example, Blue Cross now pays a hundred per cent of hospitalization so
if you exhausted a hundred days of hospitalization, even though you
made no deductibles of co-insurance or copayment, you would go right
into the catastrophic plan which itself has no deductibles or co-
insurance.
Q.
Governor --
A.
Here and then I!ll get back to you.
Q.
In effect then you are taxing 8.4 million families to help
perhaps 10,000 families a year. Isn't that a rather broad tax for a
rather narrow number of people to benefit?
A.
No, the odds work out because here we are playing -- people
are playing Russion Roulette, and it can happen to any ore of us. It is
like any -- any insurance is a gamble that it isn't going to happen.
You pay your fire insurance on the basis of how many fires rationally
do you expect, what's the average a year? And your house may never
catch on fire, but you feel comfortable with having the fire insurance.
This is -- this low fee guarantees you that if you are one of those that
it happens to you are not going to be wiped out. You are going to be
provided for without selling your home, or the rest. And the fee
can be this low if you have that many people. The reason the insurance
company can't sell it on a voluntary basis is because then the fee has to
get so high.
Q.
Well, Governor --
Q.
Governor, isn't it more likely that the person who has below
standard health insurance or no health insurance at all is the guy
who's just above the Medi-Cal level rather than the wealthy man who
ops not to take it because he can afford to pay his own medical bills?
-8-
A.
Well, I don't think SO. We have the medically indigent who
are not actually welfare recipients in Medi-Cal, but I think more
likely you find the person who -- or there is as much chance that
you find the person; who feels, well, I've got a good job and I've got
some money in the bank, and I can pay my own docgor bills, and doesn't
feel the need for this. But whichever way the answer is that --
the answers and choices that are available to any individual, I think,
makeshhim able to meet his situation. If he wants to gahble that
he might have to mortgage his home for that $8,000 and so therefore
he won't worry about insurance, and he'll them come in on it, if it
should happen to him, well, that's his privilege.
Q.
Governor --
Q.
I want to change the subject.
Q.
Wait a minute, I want to ask, how do you keep the affluent
out?
You say this, you know, wouldn't apply to the affluent.
A.
Well, yes, you don't keep them out. They, too, in their
earnings are going to be paying for this. Anyone who is an earner.
Q.
A wage earner?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What if theyeare just wealthy and not working?
A.
Well --
DR. BRIAN: They have taxable income, Governor, over $500
a year, based on taxable income. They of course are voluntarily
in the basic system, so as you say the very affluent may decide to
run the risk of spending $8,000 and then wait for the catastrophic ---
Q.
So then really no matter how wealthy a person is he's going to
contribute to his --
A.
He's going to contribute, yes.
Q.
Governor, in past years this idea has been adamantly opposed
by conservatives in general, and doctors in particular. Why is it
now suddenly becoming respectable in the conservative circles?
A.
Well, I'm not sure that this has been adamantly opposed.
The matter of the catastrophic illness in the past -- I think, was
taken care of in a number of ways. It was not only private charity
but also prior to things like Medi-Cal and Medicare I think most
doctors had a list of patients that they cared for on their own.
It was a private charity on the part of the doctor, and this has been
largely ignored in recent years by people who want to be critical
of health care services, that for many years doctors carried people
-9-
on their books or th just didn't even put the on the books at all.
Doctors gave of their own time, a proportion of their time to help out
in these things. But when government got in more and more into the
field of medical care and our own Medi-Cal and Medicaid, this began
to sidappear for one thing. The government had pre-empted this field.
And now you come more and more to this case of the -- of the catastrophic
illness.
Q.
Is it because of a feeling that if we don't get this we
may have socialized medicine? Is that what prompts this?
A.
No, I think there is a need for it. Let me add something to
what I just said that also answers your question. I think adso in the
past that a great many of these very expensive treatments did not
exist and a lot of the people we are talking about today are alive and --
and very bluntly their case was taken care of in the past because they
didn't live. But now with kidney dialysis and things of this kind
we have this -- this ability to heal andthis ability to keep people
alive and in many instances living fairly comfortable lives in spite
of these illnesses, but the cost is terrific and there is no -- no
way out of it and this is -- I think this hasbcreated a new problem
in medicine.
Q.
Governor --
A.
Here and then I'll come to you.
Q.
Then a man who makes $5,000 and a man who makes $75,000 still
pays $36 a year, is that it?
A.
That's right, yes. Yes.
Q.
Governor
:
Governor, it is the nature of things that
insurance companies make profits in activities they take part in.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to have the state administer the whole thing?
A.
Well, let's take Medi-Cal, priort to the reforms. Medi-Cal
patients were averaging double the costs of the medical expenses of
the private citizen who paid for his own. No, I don't think you can
make a case that government really can do anything cheaper. than it can
be done at the private sector, because the very need to make a profit
holds down overhead and militates against building up a giant bureacracy
and I think -- I think government medical programs prove this. The
most expensive now -- and don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting now
that we cancel out our needed Veterans Hospitals, but you might be
interested to know that the most expensive medical care in the world
today is the Veterans Hospital. So, no, I don't think that there --
that the profit motive at all is going to make --
-10-
Q.
Governor, we were told yesterday there was no profit built
into this for the insurance companies.
A.
There isn't. There can't be. This thing -- this is built --
the amount of money that will come in with all the income receivers
in the state involved, the amount of money is based on actuarial stand-
ards of 10,000 such cases a year, an average cost of $25,000 a year.
It adds a small surplus in case one year you have a few more people
or a few more serious ailments which anyone would have to have that
kind of a surplus built in, and what prorates out to a reasonable
administrative overhead. Whoever is doing it. And the fact that
the money is in a state pool of money, it is the state that will have
that money invested, and -- and it will be earning money for the
public rather than -- than reing in the hands of a private insurance
company that might be using it for its own investments and thus making
a profit off the pool of money.
a.
Governor, if there is such a need for treatment of catastrophic
illness, why haven't insurance companies done this on their own and
doesn't your plan actually mean government intervention, forcing them
to do this?
A.
No, as I said earlier, the private insurance companies have
found that the premium -- oh, they'd do it except that all of them have
some ceiling. You can get insurance policies that will pay up to
with
$40,000. But again if you are/one of those $25,000 a year ailments,
what do you do after 18 months when that's been used up? No, it is
a plain case of -- it was uneconomic to -- for an insurance company
to try to sell the premium that would be necessary for an unlimited
medical treatment as to amount and time. And the only way it can be
done is on this basis and this is why we are submitting it to the
people. Now, if the people hear about this and the people analyze
this and we want them to know all the facts about it, and if the people
then say, look, we'd rather have the 36 bucks in our pocket, then I'm
sure they will let their legislators know and there won't be any such
protection and we will still be left with the problem of the 10,000
of us that it happens to each year, how do we meet that problem.
Q.
Governor, you say some policies cover up to $40,000 for a
year.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Now, if the state's going to take -- be willing to take for
$3 a month everything over $8,000 and I think this is part of Senator
-11-
Moscone's boondoggle. remark, won'd the private urriers be likely to
suggest or renegotiate and get it down to where $8,000 is their
maximum and it would be so cheap for anyone to get all the rest of
it for just $3 a month.
A.
Well, I think some individuals affluent enough to have that
kind of a health insurance policy, he'll make the decision himself as
to whether he wants to continue, maintaining insurance above that --
above that level.
Q.
I'm talking agout group policies, they are negotiating --
A.
Well, I doubt if any group policies would go up to that
kind --
DR. BRIAN: Again, Governor, the $8,000 number is not
applicable here, they would verylikely negotiate down these policies
in a vertical sense to the minimum standards, aa hundred days of hospi-
talization, 30 days of extended care. But a hundred days of hospitali-
zation can cost much more then $8,000. In cases can run in the
neighborhood of 30 -- 40 -- 50 thousand dollars in certain cases.
They will very likely negotiate these minimum standards. The $8,000
is still an outlet valve for people that really don't have insurance
and don't apply to most insurance policies. There is two different
situations.
Q.
Governor, if no profit is built in for the insurance companies,
why would they go for this? Certainly it is not a charitytthing.
A.
Well, L think it is something that they can't do. There
is no real market for them.
&
But they are going to make money on it, aren't they, somehow
or else they wouldn't go --
A.
No, I don't think how they --
DR. BRIAN: Governor, I think in the broadest perspective
in this state somewhere between 6 and 8 billion dollars will be spent
next year on health care. Assuming 7.5 billion, which will be 10
per cent of the national total, the insurance companies will be
re-issuing, 5 billion of that, this 300 million, is a relatively small
part of 5 billion dollars in expenses or a relatively small part of
7aand a half million, and it is something that cannot be done by the
insurance companies. The other part of it they can take care of there
efficiently, so they see this as possibly being a partnership
activity.
Q.
Well, when the question is asked, why would the insurance
companies go for it, what is it they have to go for? What does an
A
Really, 1. the ohly think is we wou. like to see the
insurance companies, as this gets under way, as we have said before,
we would like to see them just simply take over the administering of
this, and in other words, if you have a policy with one and you have
reached that limit of your policy that they themselves would keep
right on with -- if it was a catastrophic case, keep right on with the
payment of that and bill us for the money.
Q.
You would like to see them do it, but what if they don't
or if someone is not covered, does the state then reimburse directly
out of this fund?
DR. BRIAN: For those persons who have no insurance it is
intended to : BWC a fiscal intermediary contract, no profit, no loss
type of arrangement would be developed with different geographic
portions of the state, and indicate $8,000 of expenses have occurred,
then submit their bills through an insurer in their area for claims
payment. And then the insurer will bill the state when an aggregate
number of claims or significant amount of money --
Q.
The question does come back, what would induce an insurance
company to do this if there is no profit or no loss, why would anyone
take on this job?
DR. BRIAN: Well, it is a responsibility of the business
they have been in and find they are best capable of administering and
it is something, for example, that fiscal intermediaries do now for the
State of California and the Medi-Cal program and in the Medicare program.
It is a no profit, no loss contract now with Blue Shield, for example,
and Blue Crosses, but they do administer the program and find
they have expert ability to do it.
A.
It might be oflinterest to them also by cooperating in doing
that that it would forestall those who might empire build -- want to
empire build, might want to see government expand this and get into
the insurance business itself.
Q.
Governor, change of subject.
SQUIRE: Wait a minute, let's finish on this thing. Any
more on this question?
Q.
I'm wondering how you could come up with a program dealing
with insurance that requires the assistance of management from private
insurance companies without having relied onthose insurance companies
or private insurance sector for advice, input.
A.
Well, we employed professional advice here in getting the
-13-
actuarial figures as
what amounts we'd need a
what the premium
would have to be.
Q.
You didn't, for example, get assistance from Blue Cross,
Blue Shield, for example?
DR. BRIAN: The plan generally was developed without involve-
ment of private insurers, be they profit or nonprofit. A number of
the people involved in developing the plan are quite expert on the
subject themselves, and gave this type of input. Then the plans were
presented to profit and the nonprofit insurance companies and further
input was made and there were some minor modifications made from
that input. There will be in the future opportunity for more and more
input. But again they don't have a monopoly on the knowledge necessaril;
and it didn't -- doesn't take a large number of people do devise the
plan.
Q.
What kind of reaction did you get from the insurance
companies?
A.
DR. BRIAN: Got :a mixed reactinn, depending on the type of
insurance company you are referring to. I think the minimum standard
plan of developing standards that would insure the quality of most
plans was pretty well accepted. I think the insurance companies who
are not happy about the fact that the money now paid in premiums
that they can invest will be run through state fund and not available
for investment, so you'd have to say the reaction is mixed.
a.
Who are the companies and the persons who were most helpful?
DR. BRIAN: Well, virtually every company of any magnitude
was consulted, including out of state companies that came to California
for the presentation. I think that you can say that all of them have
been extremely helpful and this also would include Kaiser, who was
consulted, too. They aren't usually classified as an insurance
company, but they were consulted.
Q.
Another question on the same subject, you said there was no
profit involved for the insurance company, but if they are able to get
a certain amount of reserves developed, can they useithat for invest-
ment purposes and get interest on it?
DR. BRIAN: The reserves in the catastrophic fund are held
by the Statebof Califormaa, not by the insurance company. They can't
develop reserves here. They can develop reserves in their basic
insurance business just as they do now, but this $300 million will be
removed from that pool of money.
-14-
Q.
Will they
able to use any of it for investment purposes?
DR. BRIAN: No.
a.
I still want to change the subject.
A.
Oh.
SQUIRE: Someone over here wants to change the subject.
A.
He says --
B.
Actually, Governor, it is referring back to a previous
subject, I think. If the objection on this -- on busing is to try
and get rid of or stop court roders mandating busing, I don't quite
understand what options you have here in California other than to
support a constitutional amendment. Where can you turn to prevent
this from happening? If you don't support a constitutional amendment.
A.
Well, I didn't say that I didn't support it, I said that if
it could be done I was not committed to that as the only way because
I'm not familiar and obviously the President isn't either, in that he
set up this cabinet committee and has been dealing with legislators
as he did the other day to find out the best approach to this. And
it may not be necessary to have it in the constitution, you may be
able to do it simply with -- by law.
Q.
What is a better approach, though, in California, than to
have the people vote on it?
A.
Well, if it is going to be taken care of at the national
level then there wouldn't be any need for them to vote on it, would
there?
Q.
In other words, just delay in California until the national
level is resolved, is that right?
A.
Maybe there wouldn't be any delay, maybe this is all going to
be resolved prior to the -- to the time of balloting.
a.
Yeah, but on other programs this has not bothered you, you
wanted to move ahead in California and have California exercise its own
rights and operate independently of the federal government. I wonder
why you are willing to wait for the federal government to act in this
one.
A.
I think you are reading something into this that is not true
about my position. There are some areas where I think it is proper
for a state to move. There are others where I -- in fact, have
delayed beyond a point and finally moved at the state level when
Washington didn't. Such as in the area of farm labor legislation.
But there are some areas that -- that I think are proper if action is
being taken, it just doesn't make sense for as to go ahead if it is going
to be solved at the national level.
Q.
Governoe, do you feel busing in cities like San Francisco
is a waste of public funds?
A.
Well, I just think that it's been unproductive. We know
that -- that there -- it has created bitterness and created devisiveness.
We feel that the minority communities that are supposed to be the
beneficiaries are just as angry about it as the -- as the majority
community. Most people want their children going to the neighborhood
school nearest home.
MR. MEESE: dGovernor, if I can interject, one reason why
the need for federal legislation or constitutional amendment is much
of the confusion in this field has been interjected by the federal
courts rather than the state courts.
A.
I should have said that, that's why I have a lawyer around.
It is true, we could be overruled with a state provision here, and have
been sometimes by federal --
a.
Governor, do you think that standing committees of the
legislature should take a recorded roll call vote on bills instead of
a voice vote?
A.
Well, it sure would inject anew note into the fraternity,
wouldn't it?
I dohn't see any reason why that -- they shouldn't be
on record. I think many times it is possible for a legislator to have
it both ways, to publicly take one stand and then knowing that he can
protect himself in committee without being recorded as such and
I don't think the -- I don't think that should be done to the people.
The people have a right to know where a person stands and whether he is or
is not interested in getting a bill out of committee.
Q.
Governor, have you decided or discussed the matter of replace-
Bonelli
ment for Frank Minelli on the Board of Supervisors in Los Angeles?
A.
No, this tragic loss of Mr. Minelli Bonell, has just happened.
No, we haven't met on that. I realize it's a problem that's going to
have to face me.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
000
-16-
G
PPESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR
NALD REAGAN
HELD FEBRUARY 29, 1972
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is
furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made
and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
o0o
GOVERNOR REAGAN:
Good morning.
Q.
Godd morning.
Governor, the Senator Richardenn has suggested
that the time might be right to initiate recall proceedings against
the six justices who voted to abolish capital punishment.
Would
you support an effort in that direction?
A.
Well, that's his opinion. That isn't the course I would
suggest to follow, even though I'm in disagreement with the action
they took.
Q.
What course would you follow, Governor?
A.
What?
Q.
What course will you follow, Governor?
A.
Well, I think this -- as I have said before, I believe the
Court legislated, it did not -- it made a policy decision that
properly belongs to the Legislature and the people and my own belief
is that the people of the State by way of the -- an amendment to the
State constitution should settle this issue once and for all.
Q.
Did you read the decision?
A.
What? Yes.
Q.
All of it?
A.
What?
Q.
Presumably all of it then?
A.
Yes, and I -- I still am of the -- of the opinion and upheld
by a number of constitutional lawyers and authorities that they did
legislate.
Q.
Governor, would you -- the Court says that it is -- it is
their repponsibility to confront constitutionl issues. Capital
punishment is a constitutional issue.
A.
It is their function to interpret the law, not to change the
law.
And in this instance they changed the law, they did not
interpret the constitution.
Q.
Would you give your own personal support to an initiative
to put such a qu tion on the ballot and WOL you urge a yes vote
that capital punishment be allowed?
A.
I would certainly express my opinion, I'm sure I'd be asked
about this, you usually are about all initiatives, and I never made
any secret of the fact that I do believe capital punishment is a
deterrent and I don't say that lightlyy or with any preconceived
notion. In fact, I went through a period of my life when I was
opposed to capital punishment myself. I've had to -- I've had to
give thisaa great deal of study because it is a responsibility of
mine now as the -- as the last court of appeal in a sense, with re-
gard to clemency for those who are sentenced, and I -- I've been
strengthened in my belief from that study that this is a -- it is
a deterrent.
Q.
Governor what was that period of life when you --
A.
I was much younger.
3.
Governor, would you in the same line -- would you favor some
form of legislation that would prohibit hail for certain types of
crimes in this state?
A.
Well, you are getting into some legal niceties. We have in
our -- in our law and this is what has been changed incidentally
by this recent court decision -- we have in our law that for
capital crimes there is no bail and it seemed to me that that makes
sense
schoo. I don't know that it should, perhaps, be extended. I
know that the criminal justice commission has been concerned as
everyone should be with what we can do to preserve the rights of the
individual to bail in this country and at the same time protect
ourselves from what seems to be aan increasing number ofindividuals
who go on committing crimes while they are out on bail from a
previous charge. And it is -- it is more complicated than I can
take up. That's one for someone with regal training to see if
there is an answer to it. But I -- I don't believe that there is any
necessity for extending therbaildboyond or limiting it beyond those
of capital crimes.
Q.
Governor, I asked you this a couple of months ago, but let's
see if you can run through it again, are you pleased with the perform-
ance of the Chief Justice Wright Lawry?
A.
Well, I made a statement that I was disappointed with the
action of all six of them and I haven't picked anyone out for
particular attention. I was disappointed in this decision and I
felt -- and this had nothing to do with whether you are for or
-2-
against capital punishment. This had to wwwwith the court
legislating. They -- I think violated the separation of powers.
Q.
By definition you said the difference then on the part of the
Supreme Court's action was the difference between interpreting and
changing the law. Isn't it pretty much the case that sometimes
in interpreting you do change the law, coverturn a law, rule it
unconstttutional?
A.
Well, no, in this instance they were interpreting the
constitution and the constitution makes it explicitly clear in
several sections before you come to cruel or in -- or unusual
punishment, they make it explicitly clear that the constitution
is based on the acceptance of -- of the capital punishment. Such
things as you can't take a man's life without due process. Well,
this directly infers that with due process you can. Now, if the
framers of the constitution had meant the death penalty itself to
be covered by the cruel or inhuman then there would not have been
all these preceding expressions in there regarding it. I have
used an example sometimes and I'm not a lawyer, I'm a layman, but
had they been judging the method of execution on the basis of whether
it met the requirement of cruel or unuraal, not being cruel or unusual
punishment, that would have been within their province if they had
come back add ruled that the particular method of execution being
used does indeed constitute cruel or unusual punishment. That
would have been interpreting a law, that would Lave been outlawing
a method of execution without treating with the subject of capital
punishment itself. And again I say that the capital punishment is
included in our constitution and therefore the only way it can be
changed is in the process set down for changing the constitution
which is by a vote of the people.
Q.
Governor, you said you would express an opininn on such an
initiative if one were proposed. Do you intend to actively attempt
to get subh an initiative proposed and/or would you participate act-
ively in the formal campaign to get it passed as you have in
initiatives for bond issues and Proposition la and things of that
sort?
A.
Well, as I say I would express my approval of that. I don't
have to take an active part in it, I understand that several measures
are going forward at several different levels with regard to
getting this on the ballot, including legitimate and legislative
-3-
process upstair of -- of an amendment prop ed that would then
go on the ballot. And --
Q.
Governor, what I'm getting at is this, if money were raised to
lauch a campaign and advertise and that sort of thing to get it
passed, would you participate in that effort?
A.
Well, for the most part I have simply expressed myself
with regard to some, except there have been one or two instances of
campaigns that I thought actually involved the structure of state
government and the policy of state government, and I have actively
campaigned on those. But I wouldn't think it would be necessary
for me to do any more than -- than what I have suggested, that I have
expressed myself and will continue to express myself, that I
believe in capital punishment, and the people should adopt --
Q.
Governor, the State Attorney General has said in his opinion
the Courts probably have no alternative but to release on bail
people now being held for capital crimes. What do you think the
effect of this would be on society?
A.
Well, I think the whole thing has lessened the protection
and the safety of the people of California. This would just bo
another -- another instance of it. Because it is true that now under
this -- under this ruling the -- you no longer can hold in that
law.
We had one instance afready.
Q.
Do you favor delay on initiative until the U. S. Supreme
Court has ruled on this question?
A.
Well I have -- I have expressed myself that perhaps before
you go forward with all the effort that it might be well to make
sure because if the U. S. Supreme Court shouldrrüle on this issue
at the national level obviously it wouldn't do any good to have
a constitutional change out here, that would settle the matter.
And there is every reason to believe that such a decision is
Imminent from the U. S. Supreme Court.
Q.
So then therefore we should wait for that, until the
legislature, let's say, takes action on putting it on the ballot?
A.
I would hope -- however, if the -- I think you should be
prepared to go forward if they are not going to hand down that ruling,
then you just can't wait indefinitely. But I would hate to see us
go through the whole process and expense of -- of campaigning for
something if the decision is going to be handed down. I think we
have to play that a little by ear.
Q.
Governor, if there is not to be capital punishment, do you
-4-
then favor making these crimes punishable by life imprisonment without
possibility of parole?
A.
Well, everyone talks about it but this is the answer,
life imprisonment without possibility of parole, it doesn't work.
And hever has worked. People a few years from now are not bound
by what someone said at this time. The famous Leobold case in Chi-
cago was a case in point. They were sentenced without possibility
of parole and one was paroled. As time went by. At the present
time I have to say this, that our own law in California makes --
and this is something to think about with this decision that's
been handed down, makes anyone liable for parole after seven years
of a life sentence has been served.
a.
Governor, have you ever seen a man die by execution?
A.
No.
Q.
In the ordinary mmeaning of the word, do you consider an
execution to be cruel?
A.
Well, I also consider murder to be cruel?
A.
Yes, I don't think there is any way that you can make a
prison into a resort hotel. I don't think that there is any way
that you can execute this kind of punishment without there being
a certain cruelty to it. But, on the other hand, I think --
even included in the Bible itself there is reference to -- and
its approval of capital punishment, the crime of murder.
Q.
New subject, Governor.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Governor, did you say that you believe capital punishment
is cruel, is that --
A.
Well, gentlemen, I think that you are a little nitpicking
here looking for something that you can hang into a lead.
(Laughter)
A.
How do you -- how do you describe taking someone's life without
saying I'm quite sure that there must be in people's mind some
cruelty attendant upon it. I think there is cruelty when you
execute a chicken to have a Sunday afternoon chicken. But if you
are goingto hang onto me that I believe in the legal -- legal
definition of cruel and unusual punishment of the constitution, no,
I believe that society has the right to take human life as a deterrent
to protect society.
Q.
Governor, there's been a flap in Taiwan and in conservative
-5-
circles about 1 joint communique. It 1. chargedithat we sold
Chiang Kai Shek down the river. Do you have any comment on that?
A.
Well, yes I -- this was a very unusual joint communique and I
don't think enough has been said about the fact that unlike most
meetings where both sides agree upon a statement, in this instance
both sides agreed that each would make a statement and they would
turn them out together and clip them together and hand it out.
So
it washa joint communique only in the sense that it was clipped
together. The Chinese said what they wanted to say and the U. S.
representatives said what they wanted to say, and therU. S. with
regard to Taiwan reaffirmed what has always been our position with
regard to Taiwan. And that is that when tensions eased and forces
were no longer necessary that we would withdraw them. But we
will make the decision astto when that time has come. There is
nothing new proposed. As a matter of fact, the Armed Forces -- the
military forces on Taiwan, the army forces, the soldiers there
are -- are not combat troops and area actually service troops
related to the war in Vietnam. And they have been scaled down
over a recent period as the war has been scaled down, but there
is not going to be any change in the some 9,000 that are left for
another year and this will be contingent again, as I say, on the --
on the war in Vietnam, but there's been no change and certainly
no reference was made to the pssition of the 7th Fleet which has
been stationed in those waters ever since the Chiang Kai Shek
government moved to Taiwan. And I thought the President last
night in his homecoming speech made it perfectly plain that nothing
has changed in our relationship with Taiwan and our determination to
protect Taiwan.
&
Governor, aside from the technicalities in the treaty, do you
think that the -- the President's statement in the joint communique
and his trip to China has caused Nationalist China to lose face?
A.
No, I don't think so, and I notice that the -- of course
this wouldn't be true in America, but I've noticed that the press in
Taiwan is much more exercised than the officials of government of
Taiwan about this. In fact, their statements have been -- have
been quite mild. I think the President want out of his way in the
communique to recognize the fact that both Red China and Taiwan in-
sist that there is only one China. Now the question of which
-6-
government is he legitimate government 1 not for the United
States to decide. Well, this is exactly the position of Chiang
Kai Shek. He says there is only one China, and on each side of the
channel they lay claim to being the legitimate government.
8.
Governor, in the past you've toured the Orient on the Presi-
dent's behalf. Would you anticipate a welcoming commission
touring China on the President's behalf?
A.
Me visiting China?
B.
Yes.
(Laughter)
A.
I'd want him to soften them up with a couple moro trips like
this last one before I went there, because I understand that while
Dr. Kissinger was there, while I was on my trip to those six other
nations, that Dr. Kissinger said he was greeted overy morning with
a fistful of clippings that the Chinese had to show them of things
that I had said in those six other countries, so I think they have
been keeping tabs on me. I don't even plan to visit the Democratic
Council.
(Laughter)
Q.
Another subject, please.
Q.
Two questions, Governor. Would you oppose or support an
initiative that would legalize the right of an 18 to 21 year old
to drink?
A.
Oh, this is a constitutional change to lower the drinking
age to 18. Now there -- here I put on a different hat. Now I put
on my hat as a parent and a citizen and not as a Governor.
Personally I'd be opposed to it.
Q.
All right, my second question.
a.
I have a question relating to your first question.
Q.
I have a question relating to my first question.
There is
some talk among Republicans that the party will not sponsor any
initiative that's going to bring out the 18 year old vote, and
consequently the party won't support the driking and the death
penalty on an initiative. Now, is there any truth to this?
A.
I've heard nothing of that kind, no.
Q.
Republicans have said this.
A.
Well, they must be speaking as individuals then, I know of
no party position and no official position and I've just told you
that I would support the -- the death penalty issue. I think we
have to face the fact that they are voters and they are probably
going to vote and I am just hopeful that in the months ahead we can
explain to them 'W badly fooled they have en if they think that
the things they are complaining about would be cured by the party that
caused them to happen.
Q.
Governor, while we are on the initiative, how do you feel
about or think about the initiative to legalize marijuana?
A.
To legalize marijuana, I'd be opposed.
Q.
To put it on the ballot or opposed to voting for it?
A.
Well, I -- I've always found it hard to be opposed to letting
the people vote on any issue, but I would -- I'll just say I would
be opposed to legalizing marijuana. I don't think anyone has thought
that through and I think the increasing body of evidence that seems
to be piling up, whether you agree with it or not, has to -- whether
it's proven a case for marijuana it certainly has revealed that
there is a great uncertainty about the effects of marijuana.
And
I think it is silly for someone to say, well, until they prove it
to me I'm going to keep on using it. We are a society that already
puts a notice on just a plain tobacco cigarette, that it is injurious
to your health.
Q.
Did you say that you upposed having it put on the ballot?
A.
No, I said I've always found it difficult to oppose letting
the people vote on these matters. So I -- I don't have particular
objection to that. But I, as an individual, would oppose the
legalizing or marijuana.
Q.
Governor, a new subject.
A.
Well, now did your --
Q.
Yes, her second question was my first question.
A
-- your co-author -- you are all solved.
Q.
Has there been a decision made on appointment to the Los
Angeles County Board of Supervisors?
A.
No, that's a decision I still have to make and I still have
people what want to give me more input on it, but as quickly as
possibly I am going to make the decision.
Q.
Governor, last week you appointed Republican Senator Cologne
to the Appellate Court in San Diego. Previously you named two
of his law firm's partners to the Superior Court in Riverside
County. How does this jibe with your campaign pledges to keep
politics out of the appointment of judiciaries?
A.
Because we have followed exactly the same process we have
been following for five years. Their names were submitted with
all other potentialrnames and they were the ones that came back
-8-
rated by the multiple committees that we used as the men who should
get the appointment. I have to tell you this, I have not violated
that process. I have not violated it in the face of people who have
tried to put pressure on on behalf of individuals, some here in
government. But we have held to that policy of going by the ratings
of the committees, and we are not -- I'm not going to violate it.
I still believe that it should be put into law, but until it is
I'm voluntarily abiding by the law that I myself sought to have
passed.
a.
Your appointment secretary said you had no committees for
Appellate appointment, it is more informal.
A.
No, we -- We do the same kind of screening process with this.
We dontt have the same firm of committees set up as we do for the
regular judicial appointment, but we do go out, we go to the
State Bar and we go to the others and Senator Cologne came back
extremely highly rated and qualified for this job.
Q.
Governor, a05 appointments, Kerry Mulligan's resignation
became effective Saturday. When do you plan to announce his
successor and what are you looking for in that man?
A.
We haven't taken up the matter of his successor as yet, so I --
as you know, I've just been away and yesterday was the first day
back in the office, so it is in that pileup of things that lie
ahead of me for the next two weeks.
Q.
Governor, several weeks ago you announced that you are going
to send the legislature some resolutions to put itself on record
in favor of the President's peace proposal for Vietnam. You
haven't done SO. It is six weeks --
A.
I didn't mean that I would send them, I asked them to take
up this matter.
Q.
Who did you ask?
A.
Well, I thought in publicly announcing this, in asking it,
I think -- did we follow up with a letter asking this or did our
legislative section just do it verbally, asking about --
ET MEESE:
The request was made verbally. There has
been no specific letter.
A.
I didn't intend I would send one up, and ask them to pass.
Q.
You mean you made the request verbally in the speech to the
YMCA Legislature?
A.
No, our legislative unit relayed my request that the Legislature
-9-
take this matter up.
Q.
Governor, last week you had two youth advisors as your liaison
with the campuses. You no longer have them. Have you given up
on youth or don't you need a liaison?
BAUL BECK: That's not true.
Q.
Who has them -- they never were announced -- you don't even
know the names?
PAUL BECK: No, I don't.
Q.
Governor, do you know the names of your advisors?
A.
I said Alex Sheriffs -- Alex Sheriffs would be able to
answer that. We rotate these quite frequently.
Q.
Govemor, what's the status of your no-fault insurance studies?
A.
Well, we are -- we have been studying this -- this matter
and we -- I think will have, very shortly, some guidelines, broad
guidelines within the framework of which we think no fault insurance
should fall.
Q.
There are now five or six no fault insurance bills that
have been introduced. Are you prepared to support any of them yet
or do any of them look like you will support them?
A.
I can't tell you what's -- what is in those bills or whether
they are -- but we have been going forward with our own study.
We found out that there are -- there are pitfalls in this as there
are in any -- any proposals that are made of this kind.
Q.
Governor, has the State Bar confirmed you on the bill you
talked about here this morning?
A.
Not with me personally, I don't know whether they have with
anyone -- has the State Bar conferred with any of our people?
MR. MEESE: They advised us of their plans and we have been
talking with them generally about the over-all no fault program.
Q.
Do you anticipate having your own bill?
A.
I can't tell you as yet as to that. It would depend on
what's up there.
Q.
Senator Moscone introduced a bill studies and written by the
Bar Association this morning, are you aware of what's in that bill
and what's your reaction to it?
A.
No, I'm not even sure that Senator Moscone is aware of what's
in it.
(Laughter)
Q.
Governor, over the week-end the C.S.E.A. asked you for -- to
-10-
engage in formal negotiations to setttle their grievance with the
hydroelectråc workers on the State Water project. Are you
prepared
to negotiate on that subject?
A.
Well, that's another subject that --
ED MEESE: Our people are consulting and have not yet taken
a position so far as I know on it. There have been, however,
continued discussions with hydroelectric workers and representatives
of the State government.
Q.
But you wouldn't call them negotiations?
ED MEESE: Well, there have been continued discussions
on it.
Q.
To return just a moment to the death penalty, you said it
would be a good idea to wait for the U. S. Supreme Court to act.
If the U. S. Supreme Court dedides under our national constitution
the death penalty is unconstitutional, would you favor an amendment
to that constitution? And would --
A.
I would probably be in favor of it, but in view of some
other attempts of amending things like the prayer amendment, I doubt -
I dbout if anything would happen. There seems to be at the
national level a great reluctance to open up the -- that subject.
I wouldn't be optimistic , in other worlds
a.
Governor, did you order Director Procunier to suspend and
review the 72 hour pass program?
A.
No, this decision was made by the Secretary of that agency
and by others in a study of this, and the study has been going
forward. There is a -- there is a study of that, WO still are
confident it's only been two per cent of the people in more than
16,000 who had those passes that have committee crimes while they
are out, but even that two per cent we are investigating stricter
adsministrative procedues, because we think our first obligation
is to protect the citizenry and even two per cent of those individuals
committing crimes as they have recently is too much if we can
prevent it.
( V ED MEESE: Governor, could we clarify the decision was m.
by Mr. Procunier in consultation with Secretary Holt but it was
Procunier's decision.
Q.
Governor, on another subject. On your proposal for the
new mansion. Who would decide the design of it? This has been a
hassle in the past, there have been commissions appointed, and how
-11-
would you work
?
a
VOICE: Governor, may I say something on that. I've been
working on that while the Governor is out of town and the State law do
provide for an architect to be appointed by the Director of General
Services. The architect in connunection with the State Architect,
the Director of General Services and the Director of Finance to
come up with a plan.
A.
Say, that's very interesting, because I was worried about the
answer to that question.
VOICE: That's in Government Code Section 8170, I just
happen to have that one in mind.
A.
That's been one of the things that's been wrong in the last
three years, nobody has been able to get together with anything and
now that I know of that I tell you, there is a certain streak of
dictator in me that makes that very attractive.
Q.
Governor, what type of a design would you favor -- personally
favor or Mrs. Reagan?
A.
Back when there was a committee, you know, set up and was
trying to raise by public subscription funds to go forward with
this, it was the consensus of everyone and certainly included Mrs.
Reagan and myself, that the best historical link that should be
evidenced in that structure would be the Spanish heritage of
California. And that it should be of the early Monterey or the
Spanish type architecture. I think -- I think to go -- someone
suggested modern, for example -- is to go with something that
might be sadly outdated just a few years from now, and I think the
idea of going with something that is basic and characteristic of
California would be best of all. I've also been interested to
note that the -- at least one paper that's been doing some polling on
this subject finds a great many people that are enthusiastic
shout why don't we raise the money by public subscription, and the
word must not have been carried very far and wide a few years ago
that we were trying that very thing.
Q.
Governor, do you think that happily married women should
be able to establish legal residence separate from their faithful
husbands?
A.
I believe that happily married women who want to establish a
legal resident separate from their husbands are lyingabout being
happily married women.
-12-
SQUIRE:
Any more questions?
Q.
Yes, there is. Sometime ago, in fact it was at the last
press conference, I think you in answer to some other question came
up with the comment about state employees using public cars etcetera,
for non-official buciness. In any event last week we heard that
some of your cabinet officers are using cars destined by legislation
to be used for law enforcement work.
A.
I suspect that some place upstairs there is a little bureau
where they are figuring out the target for each week and so this is
the target this time. Yes, we are -- we are reviewing this and
we always do and continually review, and sometimes it changes,
sometimes there are circumstances that we believe marrant plain
license plates instead of the E license plate for individuals.
And we recognize that it is a subject of ongoing review at all times.
And we are doing that at this time. But I don't think that there
have been any great violations -- deliberate violations on our
part. As a matter of fact, I think we have been pretty good about
it and we will go on with this, we will look again.
Q.
The question seems to be, though, not whether you think it
warrants it, but whether the law warrants it. Specifically it is
for law enforcement work.
BRUMEBECK: As the Governor said, that statement has -- that
policy is being worked on and we will have a statement for you.
a.
I was asking him, Paul.
A.
Listen, I tell you, yes, and you know, I was informed this
morning as a matter of fact, and it completely slipped my mind, that
the review that we have going forward with on this, that before
noon you will all have a statement on this. So I don't think there
is any need for me answering that, you are going to have a complete
statement on the review that's been going forward on this subject.
Q.
Governor Reagan, you answered that question about women
facetiously, but the law right now says that if a man is transferred
out of the state and let's say the woman wants to stay on and continue
her education, she loses her residency, you don't -- now that's
the law. And Henry Waxman is trying to change it. Do you believe
1y is a fair and -- or an archaic law?
A.
You mean that she would no longer -- even though she was
staying here she would be bound to vote by his new residence?
a.
She would lose her right to residency, to serveon a jury, she
couldn't get a divorce in California Court, and she might have
trouble inheriting money. Now, that's the law as it stands and I
know you don't mean to be facetious about something that serious.
A.
No, but I like my first answer best.
(Laughter)
8.
You were given a baited question, Governor Reagan.
A.
I'm a male chauvinist. No, let me say -- let me just say
answer one of these questions that involves legalities and then my
lawyers over there get me aside afterward and tell me something
I overlooked, but my first -- my first instinct would be back to you,
I did not know of the existence of such a law, and it would seem to
me that certainly some changes could be made because in this society
of ours, particularly with regard to such things as education, what
you have just suggested is very possible.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor, again.
---14-
-14-
PRESS ONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONA
REAGAN
HELD MARCH 7, 1972
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is
furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their con-
venience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made
and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
o0o
GOVERNOR REAGAN:
This isn't a big long opening statement.
Just a note that Dr. Bill Rivers is here with his journalism students
from Stanford again. About 20 of them. Welcome, glad to have
you here, so everybody here mind your manners. Now, that's
my
opening statement.
Q.
Governor Reagan, if it was your decision to make, would you
accept the $400,000 from I.T.& T.?
(Laughter)
A.
I'm going to leave that up to the Senate Judiciary Committee
to continue with this.
Q.
But if it was your decision, would you accept it?
A.
Well, I don't -- that would depend on how all of this develops
and turns out. I just don't know enough about it.
Q.
Didn't you say the -- the UPI that you would not -- that you
suggested turning the money back?
A.
No, I said the other day with regard to that and with regard
to the Lieutenant Governor's statement, I can understand making it
and it is true that as we have said before on several other intances
in here, you have to be super careful, particularly when forces are
out trying to portray something in one way or the other, you have
to be super careful to not even subscribed to an appearance of wrong-
doing. And so possibly -- possibly there is some reason for this,
but I understand it is a moot question anyway, that the National
Committee has already made the decision to reject any such contribu-
tion.
Q.
Governor, Mr. Carlson says that that report on success or
lack of success of the implementation of Welfare Reform Program contains
incomplete data and really is no report at all. If there is no
complete data on the efficacy of the welfare reform act, on what
have you been basing your contention that the plan is an outstanding
success?
-1-
A.
On the fac
And the facts as we ha
them. Now, what he
meant by this being an imcomplete report, it is -- it has not been
looked over by legal counsel in the welfare department. But
let's -- let's set the pins up and get them all in a row here.
Welfare reform started to be implemented in January, a year ago --
more than a year ago. When a great deal of welfare reform was
administrative changes that we could put into effect we started with
a whole change of the personnel over there. The change of the
cabinet secretary's post, the Director of the department, and we
started implementing the administrative reforms. Now, we hadea
legislative package, a great deal of the legislative package
actually was to substantiate or give statutory backing to the admini-
strative changes, because we knew that many things we were trying
to do would be legally challenged. Now, starting in January, it
took sometime until in April before we were beginning to see the
effect of those administrative changes. The legislative package
did not go into effect until October. So a report was asked
that covered 25 per cent of thecounties. Our own department set
out to have a report to watch and see what was going to be the effect,
which counties were doing a good job of implementing, which counties
were dragging their feet, and so forth. This is the incomplete
return that has been made. Therecorded some gains. It recorded
some things in which there was disappointment. It recorded the fact
that there were almost immediate court challenge to some of the
legislative forms. It comes down to the fact, however, that the --
we have never pretended that we can put our finger on which reforms
save which amount of dollars, and as you will recall, this was one
of the big issues of dispute with the legislature. They wanted a
price tag on every single thing. We tried to give them estimates
to the best of our ability as to what might result. But the plain
truth of the matter is that starting in January we began to take
effect in April -- as we continued to collect the returns on --
basically on our administrative reforms, we found that each month
we had changed from an increase of 40 to 50 thousand people to an
actual decline. People were leavint the welfare rolls or at
least there were lessnames on the welfare rolls. So that by now
we are able to say there are 182, 300 fewer people on welfare than there
would have been without the reforms. Or than there were last
March. There are actually 538,000 people fewer than there would
have been without the reforms because there we would have to go by
-2-
our projections and our projected increase following the line, and the
curve of the increase we had known for a considerable period in
the past had indicated there would be that much growth in the welfare
rolls. Now, this was purely for us within the department. This
was to begin to check and see if the legislative reforms, when
they were going to be in operating. We did not expect an immediate
change. They started in October. If you will look back to January
to April, we expect that pretty soon we will begin to see the effect
of these additional changes, but we have no way of judging how --
how much they are going to add to the savings that we have already
made.
Q.
Governor, Secretary of State Brown has suggested a federal
grand jury investigation into the whole I.T.T. matter. Based on
his contention that I.T. & T. may have violated two federal campaign
laws, one forbidding federal campaign contributions from corporations
and another Scrbidding firms holding defense contracts to make federal
campaignocontributions. Would you be in favor of such an investiga-
tion?
A.
Well, I think this is a legal matter for the U. S. Attorney
in San Diego to make that decision. Apparently, according to
Senator Eastland, yes, there is -- this is not a campaignecontriku-
tion. I thought he summed it up peetty well, about this was a
business firm making a contribution to the city of San Diego in their
effort to get the convention to come to San Diego, but that's -- that
that decision is up to the U. S. Attorney to make and now -- maybe
the Secretary of State feels better qualified to render opinions on
that subject. But I don't.
Q.
Governor, since Lieutenant Governor Reinecke's version of
what happened appears to conflict with the former Attorney General's,
do you think it would be apprppriate for the Governor Reinecke to
come back to Washington to testify before the Judiciary?
A.
I don't know, I don't see what there is to testify. There
wasn't any real conflict, he was caught on the phone and out of the
state. He tried from memory to recall when he had had the meeting
with the Attorney General, when he came back and checked his own
records he found that he had given the wrong meeting. And I think
anyone who goes back and forth as many times as any of us do on trips
of this kind -- this is easily understandable. If you ask me what
I discussed at the last Governor's Conference, or whether that was
-3-
at the one before, I'd have a hard time remembering which is which.
They begin to run together pretty soon.
Q.
Governor, change of subject?
Congressman Ashbrook in his
campaign is apparently using a letter that you wrote on August 24,
in which you said we -- writing to Republicans, "We have pretty well
guaranteed the continuation of Taiwan in the United Nations.
At
the same time we areppretty sure the Red Chinese will not accept a
seat under those terms. I hopeyme will be able to give the
President your unqualified support.' He says this turned out not
to be true, therefore why should we believe that deals were not made
with the people of the Republic of China.
A.
Well, if he's saying that, he's reaching a long way.
What
someone has evidently turned over a personal letter to him.
I
have for a long time and ever since the announcement of the Peking
visit, I have been getting letters from Republicans I know throughout
the country. I've answered them personally with my own views.
It
is true that everyone apparently in Washington and art believed that
there was going to be a U. N. decision that would admit Red China
but it would also preserve Taiwan. The great shock was when we --
they moved the vote up by a number of weeks and months and held the
early vote that -- and Taiwan was outsted, this did come as a great
surprise. It was also commonly believed by many that Red China
would not accept admittance to the United Nations on the basis of awo
two China policy there. And I expressed my own personal belief
in that. Well, we never got to test out whether they would or not
because the U. N. ousted Taiwan.
a.
Governor, getting back to welfare, when you went back before
the Senate Finance Committee in Washington, why did you differentiate
between the welfare reform and the administrative changes? It
seemed to me you left the impression with the Senate it is the over-all
act that is knocking people off of welfare, you don't think you did?
A.
No, I don't. As a matter of fact, we have never claimed that
this is all due to the legislation. We couldn't. We didn't pass
that legislation until in August, it didn't go into effect until
October. We were already announcing that the administrative changes
we made alone were resulting in these great savings.
Q.
What are some of those changes?
A.
Oh, they have to do with eligibility, mainly.
Q.
Which ones weren't blocked by the court?
-4-
By special need eligibility, the court blocked that out.
A.
Well, many of these -- these court actions are with regard to
the legislative changes. But all I know is that the administrative
tightening on that began, as I say, in January, was already recording
like 20,000 a month drops in welfare instead of a 40 to 40, thousand
increase long before we had ever persuaded the legislature to
even negotiate that part of the package. But if you will check
my statement to the committee, you will find that we have repeatedly
pointed out that the basis of these changes have been from the very
beginning of our administrative changes. As a matter of fact, I
have suggested that if they'd wait until we see the rest of the package
in operation, too, that we might be very modest in our estimates of
success.
Q.
Well, how do you know that the 50,000 a month perhaps weren't
AFDCU people that were returning to the economy, therefore getting
off
AFDCU?
How can you identify them?
A.
Because at the time when these started to go these declines,
we were still having an increase in unemployment. And because back
over the years, this regular increase upon which we base our estimates
our statisticians base the estimates, has been -- has held steady
regardless of the state of the economy, even at a time of full
employment during the war we were continuing to increase that much
in our welfare case load. Now, we have drawn some comparisons with
other major states who are also declining in unemployment and we
have found that they are still increasing in their case load in
welfare, in AFDC.
Q.
Governor, in your savings -- adminis trative savings,
particularly that went on before the act went into effect, how much
of that do you attribute to the attitudes? In other words, case
workers who were no longer quite so careless, perhaps applicants,
recipients and so forth who were afraid, who were misusing the food
stamps.
A.
Bless you, I have used that very argument, I have said that
we think that a great deal of this could have been psychological,
that once they knew that someone was watching, that more care was
being exercised, we think that not only did people who have been
drawing welfare and there was question as to whether they should
have been drawing it or not, but case workers who have been careless
about this -- I think I stated publicly some -- a short time ago,
-5-
perhaps even in here, that the change in the number of children on
AFDC, we believe, is because they were paper children, that there was
miscounting and it was miscounting that was tolerated by many case
workers, and that we actually haven't ousted children from the rolls
SO much as they are now counting accurately. And the case workers
are being a little tighter themselves, because they know they are
being watched. This is our claim. As of now, to date, we have
actually -- savings we can count total 148 million dollars. Our
estimate for the -- for that plus the balance of the fiscal year
is 338 million in savings. Now, the savingscould have been more
except that at the same time we increased the grants by 30 per cent
to the people who are remaining on welfare and who are truly
eligible. Those people went from -- was it 221 to 280 dollars a
month. And that was all done out of the savings that we have been
able to make.
Q.
Governor, arethose figures including state and county costs
also, such as state funds?
A.
State and county and federal. We can't save a dollar
without saving everybody else a dollar.
PAUL BECK: I think it is the State.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: No, I don't think SO. The 708 million
dollar reduction in the -- budget estimate for next year is the total
cost.
BAUL BECK: Yes.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: And I think the 338 so far this year is --
that is the total cost of welfare.
Ed
Gray
VERNE ORR: Governor, that figure is 388, not 338.
(Laughter)
GOVERNOR REAGAN: You have to watch the staff every second
here. Yes, sir, as I said, it is 388 million dollars.
(Laughter)
GOVERNOR REAGAN: You know, a fellow like that --
Q.
New subject, Governor, --
SQUIRE: Why don't you get welfare out of the way first.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Anyone else on welfare before we go to a
new subject? The man in the corner has a new subject.
Q.
All right, Assemblywoman March Fond said -- has said a while
a
ago you and she have reached an accord on/venereal disease instruc-
tion bill. Can you explain how that happened.
(Laughter)
A.
I don't know that it is an accord with me. I
understand
that she and Assemblyman Barnes are discussing co-authoring both the
appropriation bill for the money that we have asked, so that we
can have a V. D. instruction program, and also co-authoring the terms
of the bill itself. Now, basically the bill that Assemblyman Barnes
was authoring was one that in addition to the appropriation finally
put and clarified and put in clear language actually what the law
presently is, to remove the fear from the teachers who were confused
by the Schmidtz act and who believed that some way they could endanger
their teaching credentials if they engaged in this program, and it
is my understanding that they are talking about co-authoring both
of these bills.
Q.
And also it gives parents 15 days notification so that they
could withdraw their child from the class if they wanted to.
A.
Well, they have always had that right and we agree to that.
See, the confusion was whether parents had to be notified and
I think there was confusion last year that parents had to give con-
sent and that's not true, to have this class. They only have to be
notified, and then if any one of them wants to take a child out of
the class, they can do SO.
Q.
Why did you veto last year's bill and you are now endorsing
her bill this year?
A.
Well, because her bill this year, if amended into the Barnes
bill, will not be the same bill as last year. The only change --
I could have signed her bill last year except for one change.
I
could have signed it because it did not change the law at all.
There has never been any -- anything in the law to prevent V. D.
instruction in the schools. Her law did however --or her bill did
contain a clause that the parents didn't have to be notified. And
as I have said in repeated occasions in here, I think the states
has stuck its nose into the family relationship too much already,
and I saw no reason why the parents should not continue to be notified
Q.
Governor, in 1970 did you veto some emergency funds for
German measles innoculation that was designed to prevent the out-
break that's occurring in Los Angeles County now? It is a bill by
Senator Petris.
VOICE: Governor, it seems to me that we vetoed that because
the doctors at that time were in great dispute about massive
inccoulation for that subject, and I think we asked the public health
department to get a final position when the doctors were in more
agreement that there was an -- an acceptable innoculation.
A.
That's right, this had to do with a massive innoculation
program.
a.
It seems that the outbreak in Los Angeles County is as a result
of a lack of innoculation. Are you satisfied that the State has done
everything it can to prevent that?
A.
I'm satisfied that we did what we had to do with that bill.
There's been noting to prevent people from getting innoculations
against this.
Q.
Officials in the county say that most of the cases have
occurred in the poor neighborhoods where it is not available readily.
A.
Well, in the poorer neighborhoods it must be available readily.
They are the ones that have got the most complete medical protection
that's provided in the land today, right here in California.
But
I tell you something, don't tempt me into going beyond this with
regard to county officials, parricularly from Los Angeles County,
because they have a method whereby almost on a weekly or monthly
basis they can purge themselves of any wrongdoing by laying it all
on the state. And I don't think the state is that guilty of the
things they wduld charge us with.
Q.
What else have they purged themselves of, Governor?
A.
What?
Q.
What else have they purged themselves of.
A.
Regularly, whatever shortcomings they have down there, whether
it is fiscal or otherwise, they claim because it is the state
somehow cannot either provide the money. They in advance have
been critical of some of the changes we have made in programs before
they are emen implemented.
Q.
Are you saying that they are purging themselves this time, too,
with concern to German measles?
A.
Well, I do not believe that the State did or did not take any
action which caused an outbreak of disease.
Q.
Preventive, though, that's the question. It is not causing,
it is preventing. Would it have helped if that bill were signed?
A.
Apparently --
VOICE: Apparently as the Governor --
A.
I can go back and look at the terms of the bill. As you
have
seen, when you try to remember back over several thousand bills that
you have signed, or vetoed -- I would have to tell you I have to go
back and look at
bill and pin down
I
k what Verne said
is basically what was involved there, and the medical profession
itself was not only divided but the preponderance of opinion in the
medical profession was against that bill in urging its veto.
Q.
Governor, by your remarks about the officials in Los
Angeles County, are you intending to say that by purging the roles and
blaming things on the state they are somehow escaping the responsi-
bilities that they ought to be taking or what did you mean by that
comment?
A.
Well I think what I meant was clearly said, and actually what
I said was that if I got irked enough that's what I'd say.
(Laughter)
A.
I haven't got irked enough yet.
Q.
Could you explain, though, in a little greater detail what
you
mean. Are they doing something that's irresponsible in your
mind, is that what you are charging them with?
A.
I didn't say that. I just said that whatever happens and
whatever they like to blame on the state -- and sometimes you get
a little irritated with this because we run our shop up here to the
best of our ability and try to give as much autonomy and authority
as we can to local government, and many counties in the state, Los
Angeles isn't alone, there are a number of other counties that it
is easier to pass the buck. The only trouble is we haven't got
anybody to pass it to when it gets up here.
Q.
What specifically are they blaming the state for that ought
to be their responsibility?
A.
Well, I'd have to go back and make out a memorandum and list
all of the complaints that they have uttered in the last year or so
and provide you with that list.
Q. Well, obviously it is in your mind, you must be able to think of
some specific events, what it is they are blaming the state for.
A.
Well, in this instance they blamed us for not passing a bill
and therefore they have got an outbreak of disease.
Q.
Governor, do you intend to endorse any specific coastline
legislation this year or intend to introduce -- have your own bill
introduced?
are
A.
Well, our environmental goals and objectives/that we would
have by March 1, with a few days delayed because we are trying to
coordinate with them, our own approach on coastline legislation
and a number of other things, powerplant sitings, and so forth, before
we present it to the legislature. We very definitely want some
coastline legislation this year.
Q.
Governor, in some quarters Justice Donald Wright is being called
betraged
Ronald Reagan's Earl Warren.
Do you feel somewhat portrayed by this
man whom you appointed?
A.
I go no farther than what I said before, I was disappointed
in the six justices and the decision they made on the death penalty,
and I thought they had gone beyond the province of the court.
Q.
Governor, just on the coastline again. Do you expect to
have your own -- your own proposal or your own administrative --
administration program or do you expect to endorse one of those bills
that's now beforethe legislature?
A.
I don't know what all is before the Assembly now. We always
approach from the standpoint of either our own or if there- is some-
thing suitable that maybe with some amendments could meet our own
objectives, that we go that route. But I would -- my own reaction
is that we probably have our own.
ED MEESE: It is a distinct possibility.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: That's a pretty good phrase. Distinct
possibility.
a.
Governor, what do you think of proposals bythe California
State Employees Association for a four-day ten-hour work week?
For State employees.
A.
Well, we have some that have been experimenting in this,
and we are interested in the experiments as they go forward. We
don't want to see this expanded. We think enough of them are trying
it.
We really believe experiments of this kind could properly come
from the private sector more than government because I'd hate to see
government then be accepted or be used as a leverage to force this
on private industry, whether they are willing or not. But some
departments have been trying it and we are watching it very carefully.
But we have asked that no othess.go into it. We think enough are
trying it now to -- for us to learn anything we need to learn.
Q.
Governor, Assemblyman Cullen for the second year in a row
has accused the administration of continuing jobs, some four to five
thousand jobs which should be vacated because they have been unfilled
for more than nine months, and despite the fact they have been unfilled
for more than nine months they have been continued in the budget.
Can you respond?
A.
Well, Verne could probably explain this much better, and I
ought to let him do it because he probably can put it in a single
-10-
sentence or two,
are following a policy t..
has always been
followed in the state. You ask departments after a certain length
of time with regard to positions whether they want them held open
or not. Sometimes there are cases where they haven't been able to
fill a position satisfactorily. But they want it held in their
budget as a position they feel they need. And so we continue to
budget for that. We drop those that -- that on the department's
head's say so can be dropped. And there is a certain flexibility
that you have to have in there. Have I stated it correctly?
Q.
He says the law specifically states, though, that if the job
is unfilled for nine months it should be dropped, removed.
A.
Yes, but sometimes you have the flexibility or use the
flexibility that sometimes if there are -- are circumstances in
which it hasn't been filled, but it is necessary for the department,
why, you dontinue to hold it because it is going to be filled.
VERNE ORR: I can answer to the legal question, I believe,
Governor. Section 20 of the Budget clearly says that when a job
is vacant for nine months it shall be abolished unless the department
of finance specifically accepts it to the controller, and wedon't
feel that we have been illegal. We have sent the controller each
year a list of those jobs which we take exception to and are not
abolished.
8.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Lady in the corner.
Q.
Governor, the date mentioned for the state of the Workfare
Force
program has been April 1. Yet the Director of the Alameda County
welfare department says that the only -- he only knows about the
program what he reads in the paper, and my question is, considering
that and considering the possibility of court challenges, is there
any way that program is going to be operative by April l?
A.
Well, we have been -- maybe some counties are not up with
others, but we have been getting counties to line up what the work
would be and to tell us what community projects they would have.
We set a starting date on it. I don't think anyone of us expects
that actually on April 1 a lot of people are going to go to work.
We will start registering the people in the -- in the 35 counties
as of that date. Some will get ahead of others, I'm quite sure,
in implementing this, and it is possible that he hasn't received an
official notice because it was only a few days ago, as you recall, that
I called you together because we had been given finally the permission.
-11-
Q.
Governor,
you think Pete Schabarum
11 make a better
Supervisor than any other three incumbents?
A.
Pete Schabarum would make one --
Q.
Any of the three incumbents or four incumbents, with one
retiring.
A.
Oh, listen, you don't want me to stick my nose into that.
I think that Pete Schabarum will make a fine Supervisor. As
a
matter of fact, some of the other present incumbents recommended
him. It seems as Foreman of the County Grand Jury he greatly
impressed county government with his knowledge of government and
of the -- of the problems of the county.
Q.
Do you think he'll be upset by your comments today about Los
Angeles County?
A.
Oh, I wasn't pinning those down to Supervisors, I was talking
about the bureaueracy..
Q.
Are you talking about all county officials then or just the
Supervisors or which ones?
A.
I was talking about the bureaucracy and you know me, I've
got a thing about the bureaucracy.
Q.
Governor, Curtis Patrick used your name as a personal
reference on that Nevada County land deal for which he has now been
indicted. Did you authorize his use of your name as a personal
reference?
A.
No, but I suppose if he did that -- I didn't even know if --
that he did. If he did that, I'm quite sure that Curtis probably
knowing of our association, that he felt confident that I would
speak well of him.
Q.
Did you in fact do this?
A.
No one ever asked me.
Q.
Governor, Assemblyman Brown says the two doctor visits per
month permitted under Medi-Cal now is too restrictive on the recipients
that the -- and that the proposed legislation should be listed, as
long as you permitted only 25 per year they could all be in one month.
A.
Who wants to do this?
Q.
Assemblyman Brown.
A.
Well, no, this thing is working very well. It is two visits
without prior authorization.
The request for prior authorization
were passed on by medical men as to whether they require more than
two visits. So far around 99 per cent of the requests are being
-12-
granted. But ev so, this has been very ef ctive because the
savings are around 15 per cent. And you wonder how those figures can
jibe. It simply means that a great many people just don't even
bother to ask because they know themselves that they don't have a
valid reason. So again it'ssbeen one of those things in which
you have -- you have cleaned up the rolls of excess use and weight
simply by making someone commit and declare themselves.
Q.
Governor, on another subject, Senator Collier is again t
studying the need for a new state capital building. What are your
thoughts on the matter? Do you think it is necessary or not?
A.
I would hate to think that somebody is still talking about
changing this one. I think this is -- old historic capitol is one
of the most beautiful of any state in the union. I would hate to
see it supplanted with some glass and aluminum tower, it seems to
be the modem concept. If he's talking about some additional office
space for the ever-growing staff of the legislature, they might have
two investigations, whether they need theoffice space or whether they
need that much staff.
0.
SQUIRE:
Any more questions?
Thank you.
Q.
Yes, one. There was another question.
SQUIRE: Get it in there, will you.
Q.
Yes, sure, all throughout the western United States Indians
are coming here to the tapitol particularly throughout northern
California because they among other things said they are being
deprived of basic due process, basic citizenship and they are citing
the case of an Indian who was killed in northern California and
they have asked your office for help. Where is that letter at
this point in your office?
A.
I don't know.
Q.
Nobody knows anything about it?
A.
I would -- I'd suggest the Indians have a valid complaint,
and a valid complaint not here, the valid complaint is one of a
national policy that has done what a great many of our do-gooders
would like to do, it has totally taken over the running of the
Indian lives by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and it has proven when
the State tries to do something of that kind -- not the State, the
government, when the government tries to do something of that kind
it usually falls on its face, and it's been falling on its face
for many years with regard to Indian affairs.
-13-
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RON. REAGAN
HELD MARCH 21, 1972
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press confernce is
furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their con-
venience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made
and thereeis no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
o00
GOVERNOR REAGAN: We have three classes of journalism students
Einspahr
with us this morning. One, Richard Einsbar's (phonetics) journalism
class from the C. K. McClatchy High School here in Sacramento.
And Ray Canton's journalism class from the University of California
at Santa Barbara and Eddie Chavez and his government class at
Tamalpais High School in Mill Valley. You are all very welcome,
so everybody mind your manners now.
a.
Have you got an opening statement, Governor, of any kind?
A.
No opening statement other than that announcement.
Q.
Governor, what prompted you to replase Mr. Dibble as Chairman
of the Water Resources Board and yet retain him on the board?
Is there some significance there?
A.
Yes, as a matter of fact, the Board itself asked that we
name someone from the Board who would not be under consideration
under any circumstances for permanent Chairman of the Board. They
made that request and we acceded to it.
Q.
Is Mr. Dibble under consideration for permanent Chairman?
A.
I don't know, whether he is or not.
Q.
Governor, another subject. Governor, your catastrophic
health insurance plan apparently has not been introduced yet. Mr.
Campbell now has gone off the campaign for supervisor. What are your
plans on that program?
A.
No, Bill Campbell is going to handle that legislation.
Q.
He will?
A.
Yes, he'll still carry that.
Q.
Can you tell us when it will be introduced?
ED MEESE: Soon.
A.
Soon.
Q.
Governor, some people in San Diego were concerned when the
-1-
convention talk was going on that it might give the city a bad
image. Do you think the GOP convention has already given the city
a bad image?
A.
No, I don't think SO. As a matter of fact, I hear on the
other side that their convention bureau has had a great stimulant
with regard to interest in conventions in San Diego. This usually
happens when a national political convention picks a city and
that they have had several times the requests they normally have had.
Q.
Governor, Laurence O'Brien said yesterday that the Life
article on -- on accusing the Republican administration of inter-
fering in justice in San Diego may become and should become a
political issue. Do you think that's the case?
A.
Well, I think Laurence O'Brien would make what you order
for breakfast a political issue if he had his way. I agree with
what the Vice President said about it, that you have to remember
Life is the magasine that bought Irving's story on Hughes.
Q.
Are you calling the story a hoax?
A.
What?
Q.
Are you calling the story a hoax?
A.
No, I'm just reminding you about Life's editorial policy.
Q.
Are those --
Q.
Governor, is Mendocino State Hospital going to be closed?
A.
There will be an announcement within the next -- I hope
48 hours or so on the entire program of mental health, where we are
going and what's going to be done.
Q.
Back to the previous subject.
A.
What?
Q.
Back to the previous subject, about the GOP in the national
conventinn, in your discussions with President Nixon did he ever
express to you his concern about having the Republican convention
in California?
A.
No, I've never discussed the subject with him at all.
Q.
Governor, tomorrow the federal commission will recommend that
the laws on the use of marijuana be lessened, and the current penalties
for sale only be kept. There is also a possible initiative in
California to do the same thing. Do you think voters should have
the opportunity to decide on that?
A.
Well, I don't think that that's perhaps necessary. I don't
know what the Commission is going to recommend. Here in California
we have been very progressive in allowing judges flexibility to
reduce a penalty based on the circumstances, or reduce a case from
felony statys to misdemeanor.
We have also given judges flexibility
with regard to the other way, to where when a known pusher, when there
is evidence that even though he has been caught with only a small
amount of marijuana that there is evidence that he is a large dealer
and so forth. I believe in that kind of flexibility. Because it
is true that sometimes a severe and extra severe penalty with no
flexibility car. become counter-productive, it can make a court
reluctant to find someone guilty knowing the nature of the penalty.
a.
So you would favor that approach to enforeing juana laws?
A.
Similar -- yes, similar to -- similar to what Caiffornia has.
As I say, that kind of flexibility I can -- I can appreciate.
I
don't know what the Commission might report.
Q.
Governor, a San Francisco Superior Court Judge saysthe
State should have a law providing heroin to certified drug addicts.
What would be your reaction to such a proposal?
A.
Well, I think -- I've answered that before. This is somewhat
on the English pattern that we discussed sometime ago, and I don't
think that there is any record that that has proven successful and
that that is the answer to this problem. That's a kind of a
defeatist policy. You've got some very ill people who need help
and it is almost like saying let them keep the disease and we will
just put them over here aside, and let them go their way to their
eventual doom. I don't think that's the answer.
Q.
Governor, Assembly Committee yesterday moved to the floor
of that house a constitutional -- a proposed constitutional amendment
on a statewide lottery. Would you tell us what your position is
on that at this point.
A.
Well, as I said before, I -- first of all, in those states
where they have lotteries and where they have turned to gambling
of one kind or another in an effort to raise revenues for the state
they haven't proven all that successful. As a matter of fact, they
have made very little impact on the State's financial picture. And
I just think that a state like California, the size and wealth and
power of California, that we should -- we should appeal to people's
strengths rather than their weaknesses, in order to get the funds
we need to run state government.
Q.
In other words you are against it, is that right?
-3-
(Laughter)
A.
I just talked myself into being against it, Squire.
Q.
Governor, getting back to the ITT thing, do you agree with the
Secretary of State's action in filing a lawsuit to require the pledge,
whatever it was, to be returned to ITT?
A.
It is my understanding it was never accepted, as of about
four months ago, but --
&
Is it still --
A.
I think many of these things you just have the -- the
political season is on.
Q.
Governor, that same context, an old political ally of yours
and of President'Nixon's, C. Arnold Smith, in San Diego, is now
involved in that latest flap down there. What is your reactinn
to Mr. Smith's involvement in the alleged involvement in it,
and do you think it further tarnishes the image of the convention
and of the party?
A.
Well, I'ver never thought that the convention or the party
has been tarnished by anything that has taken place, and I haven't
read the Life article so I don't know what all of that fuss is
about. And I doubt that I will get around to reading it.
a.
Governor, several Legislators from both parties, some other
officials in state government, and just about every court that
welfare comes before has been critical of Mr. Carlson's operation of
welfare in California. Has everybody had a step at hand, was there
a giant conspiracy against him or just what is the problem with
getting the message across?
A.
You can call it whatever you want. There is a giant
conspiracy or whatever it is, but I take little credence in the
most recent charges and I have all the confidence in the world in
him. The program is exceeding far beyond our greatest expectations.
And the committee that has the Chairman Beilenson that has been
bringing the latest charges, I would only point that Chairman
Beilenson was opposed to welfare reform to the extent that he
killed in his committee every effort that we have made, he finally
authored his own welfare reform bill, so-called, which was to further
kill It by passing an: innocuous bill that would not create any
welfare reform at all. Finally, in the negotiations that led to
the compromise and the acceptance of about 70 per cent of what we
have he was opposed in those negotiations to everything that was
finally agreed upon. I think there is a certain element of hypocrisy
evident there an the truth is you cannot di ute the figures.
Now, in the recent hearings last November and December, so-
called hearings that his committee held, and upon which his report
is based, we have gone to and Robert Carlson had gone to the Attorney
General and had an Attorney General's opinion that what we were
doing is legal and is carrying out the program of welfare reform.
Q.
Governor, do you have any comment upon the planned parenthood
theory that abortions and birth control have had as much to do with
cutting welfare rolls as your reforms?
A.
I think that is something that Mr. Beilenson would hope had
taken place. Actually, no one can put a finger on what particular
administrative decision, what part of all of the tightening that
has gone into this has caused the great decline in the welfare
rolls. I said the other day, and I still insist that a part of
this decline has simply been the elimination of non-existent people.
That we had paper people. There was no way prior to these reforms
that anyone was making any effort to find out how many people were
collecting several checks instead of just one. We had instances
of families that were claiming more children than they have.
And as we tightened up administratively, both the welfare workers
who had been lenient in this and the people who had been getting
away with it discovered that someone might be watching them and
they straightened up. But I have to point out that basically the
welfare reform part of the logislative package has attually not
been fully -- well, it's boen implemented, but we have not seen the
results of that as yet. The bulk of our savings has been as a
result of the tightening on eligibility and administrative procedures
that we began way last January, a year ago.
Q.
Why did it take so long to get the thing in -- to take these
people off the rolls?
A.
Well, because when you -- when you get down to the actual
removing of someone, Squire, from the roll, then this person is
entitled to a fair hearing and they must be maintained on the rolls
until they have it and right now we have a gigantic backlog of
cases demanding fair hearings.
Q.
Governor, another subject.
Governor Reagan, there is some
federal and state laws that are now encouraging people to live to-
gether because they have more funds, even the over 65's; to maintain
their Social Security they live together without marriage.
Now,
two single people get a better break on income tax than a married
couple. And a woman on welfare doesn't marry she
she gets more mor
Do you think the law
now encouraging this?
The law is encour aging it, but what will you do about it?
A.
I'd rather have our welfarepeople answer that, but this
has been of concern to us, that for a long time we think this whole
approach, the MARS approach, the man assuming role of spouse and so
forth -- the ruling that a man living as the father in a household,
simply because he is not the father of the children should be exempt
from any contribution to their support, even if he is fully employed.
We think that a lot of these things are part of the ridiculous hodge-
podge of regulations from Washington that should have been corrected
a long time ago. It's led to the kind of thing, for example, in which
a divorced woman remarrying a man of means with no problems requiring
welfare or anything of the kind, he out of deference to her previous
husband does not legally adopt the children, her children in this secon
marriage. Technically, according to Washington, she and the children
are eligible for Medi-Cal, because he is not the legal father of
these children. Now, this is an extreme case of how far the
regulations can go in opening the rolis and making it difficult to
employ common sense. I'd like to see a lot of things. I think
if a man is living in the house as the head of a household, with or
without a marråage license, I think that he should be considered as --
as the husband. And it should be considered as a family unit.
Q.
What about the two on Social Security, two elderly people,
they only have a little over a hundred a month and they can't marry
because one of them will lose their Social Security. This is
encouraging sin in the aged or something.
(Laughter)
A.
I meet this one with mingled feelings. One of somewhat
awe and envy of the people of that age who have that problem.
(Laughter)
A.
And secondly commiserationtand sympathy for --
Q.
Would you change the law?
A.
What?
Q.
Will you change the law?
A.
Well as I say, all of those I would like to see -- I'd like
to see us have the right to look at this and put them adl in a common
sanse perspective, yes, something should be done, they should not
be panalized for getting married.
Q.
Sir, John Philip Sousa of San Diego Union. Do you have a
-6-
comment on Mr. Moscone's 7 and a half billion dollar health plan?
A.
On Mr. Moscone's 7 and a half billion dollar health plan,
which I very much fear if it were implemented would become a ten
billion dollar one to start with, not 7 and a half. Yes, I think
that there is a great difference between what we have proposed for
catastrophic -- the catastrophic coverage and what he has proposed.
90 per cent of the people in California already have some kind of
medical or health insurance. We have had to resort to the compulsory
feature inour own catastrophic plan simply because here is a coverage
that cannot be supplied by the private sector. He in turn is
proposing a plan which simply puts government into competition with
private insurance and simply eliminates private health insurance,
moving in favor of a government plan. I don't think government
was set up to go into business in competition with the private
sector.
Q.
Governor, a bill was introduced today to exempt school bonds
for earthquake repair and allow them to be passed at 51 per cent.
And notwithstanding the money you have or in the budget for repairs,
how do you think voters will react to the seriousness of that
problem and the need for money?
A.
Well, Ihope that the voters will recognize -- we are talking
now about a great protective plan. You can call it a health and
safety plan in this need to bring our schools up to earthquake
standards in California. I myself favor the bond issue. Now
where I'm -- I'd have to give some thought and I haven't given any
thought, I didn't know about this until you just mentioned it, the
idea of now and then because of the particular goal that we set,
the precedent of changing the rules withrregard to the bonding,
I'd have to give that some consideration, but I am -- I just can't
believe that the people of California would not pass such a bond
issue, with what is at stake.
We have had in recent years, as you know, two or three severe
earthquakes in which we were very fortunate that they occurred
at an hour in which the schools were empty and when you went around
and looked at the buildings and visualized those buiddings filled
with children you have to know the great tragedy that would have
happened.
Q.
Do you think the problem is serious enough to exempt that
-7-
bond requirement
A.
Well as I say, I would want -- I'd want to give serious
thought to whether you set that precedent because everyone feels
that there -- that a particular bond issue is of some great
importance. And I'm one who believes that the two-thirds passage
of a bond is a pretty good protective device.
Q.
Governor, do you support the decision of the national board
in Washington to cut back the mage increases that were granted
to the ILWU workers?
A.
Well, if you are going to have a board and you are going to
try to fight inflation, I think you are going to have to go along
with their -- their decisions, whether it is on prices or wages.
And the problem they are trying to solve, it isn't an easy one.
And certainly no one is going to be happy when the ruling goes
against them. But no one would have been happy either if
they had to go to work carrying their money in a basket and some
of us in theroom are old enough that remember in Germany they
used to dismiss workers on the hour, every hour, -- pay themsevery
hour so they could rush out and spend their money because they knew
that by the time another hour was up the money would only be worth
a fraction of what it was when they were given the money. And it
is awfully easy to say that could never happen here. I don't
think they thought it would happen in Germany either.
Q.
However, the consequences would be another West Coast dock
strike, is that not worse than granting the increase under the
bargaining?
A.
Well, some place along the line both labor and management,
if there are emergency measures necessary and evidently the govern-
ment thinks there are, to curb this inflation at the same time cure
this economic dislocation of the slump, and get us back into
operation -- some place along the line both have got to be willing
to take the responsibility of accepting the bad with the good, as
far as they themselves are concerned. And I feel that there was a
certain lack of responsibility. I assess no blame on either side,
but to let that dock strike go on as long as it did, when ibevictim
ized as many as it did who had no place at the bargaining table.
You had your hand up? No?
Q.
Governor, there is now an attempt to repeal the Priolo's
bill last year on the workman's right to sue. Why did you insist
on a trade-off between that and the Fenton bill on Workmen's
-8-
Compensation last year? Or did you in fact:
A.
Now, wait a minute here. Now we get into those 5,000 bills
or so that were introduced.
ED MEESE:
This is a situation, Governor, in which there
were some bills -- it was a package of bills which increased the
Workman's compensation benefits and other bills in the package which
took care of some loopholes and problems that had occurred. And
it was jointly negotiated with members of the Legislature and the
other interested parties that the package would go through as a
whole. That's what the gentleman is talkingabout.
A.
If that's a trade-off, well that's what took place.
Q.
There's now reports that you and the A.F. of L - CIO are lined
up against Speaker Moretti, the AFL-CIO is still -- is against
repealing the Priolo bill. Do you know anything about it.
A.
I don't know, but it sure brings back that old line that
politics make strange bedfellows, doesn't it? I don't know what
they are talking about, I really don't.
Q.
Governor, have you cooled off on asking the Legislature to
enforce Fresident Nixon's vietnam peace plan?
A.
Have I what?
a.
Have you cooled off on it?
A.
Well, I think the time is past in which it cauld have been of
any great value, for them to do it, and they didn't see fit to do it.
I just felt that here was a worthwhile peacepplan that could have
ended the Willing and I believe, and have believed for a long time,
and there is evidence to support this, that North Vietnam places --
due to their own govermmental structure in Vietnam, they place a
great deal of emphasis on what they think grass roots sentiment
is.
What they think the people of America believe and they still
think that the government is out of step with the people and there-
fore they are going to win politically what they have been trying to wi.
in the battlefield. And I thought with -- with a good and legitimate
peace plan offered that there could have been a service done if the
people of this country had made it plain that they were united
behind this peace plan and that it might have shaken Hanoi into
giving it better acceptance.
Q.
Did you ever meet with the Republican Legislators on this
issue?
-9-
A.
No, I sim y expressed my will and If it in the hands of
the Legislature.
Q.
Governor, how would you evaluate your estäblishment of the
Ecology Corps and emphasis on conscientious objectors in terms of
successfully fulfilling the gap between inmate firefighters and
the need for new firefighters?
A.
Well, the people who are in charge, contrary to a few
dissidents who found that they didn't like the blisters that they
were geting on their hands, find it has been successful. It is
continuing to grow. And we are continuing the program.
8.
How about the specific emphasis that you gave at first on
recruiting conscientious objectors?
A.
That's right, we continue that. But we
also
have
:
have now -- we have taken -- we have taken others into the program
also. But that is still an emphasis.
The conscientious objector.
provision in the law requires, I think it is two years service in
some kind of public service work. And this fite that requirement.
It is hard work. I think the few dissidents that have sounded off
have not been able to see the big picture. They only see what
they are doing and they -- it is hard for them to relate moving
a rock to ecology. But it is part of the whole pattern. And I
suppose this would be true in war. We know that the man with the
gun in his hand is very often -- cannot reconcile his particular
position to the over-all strategic plan.
Q.
When you announced the program you said there were 10,000
C.O. 's in California. Are you satisfied that enough of those or
a large number have volunteered for the Ecology Corps?
A.
Well, we wouldn't have been able to take all 10,000 of them
if they all wanted to go your way, there are many service jobs
that they are doing but I know that we have been expanding and I
think we are opening up additional facilities in the very near
future and Jim Stearn who is in charge of this is very satisfied.
Q.
On the same subject, besides the blisters, some of their
complaints are along the lines that they are getting $40 a month,
that for example 2 of the Corps people have died and their families
received no benefits, there is no health insurance plan, no
death -- life insurance, etcetera. Those are a bit more than
blistersproblems. What sympathies do you have on those?
A.
Well, I have the sympathy for the family of anyone who's
died. I don't know just -- this is a brand new program. I'm
-10-
sure that everyth g that needs to be worked it will be worked out
inconnection with this.
ED MEESE: I think the question is, Governor, if anyone has
died in the program.
A.
Yes, if anyone has died. I had not heard that anyone had
died in the program.
Q.
Well, the life insurance policy that's one of the things
they said, in addition to blisters. If that were not the case,
do you know of them getting life insurance? Do you know of thom
getting medical care assistance?
ED MEESE: They do get medical care. They don't get life
insurance.
A.
We know they get full medical care.
ED MEESE: If they want life insurance, they can join the
Army.
Q.
Governor, on another subject.
SQUIRE: Wait a minute, just a minute, before we get away,
how do you feel about the proposal of the Democratic organization
that amnesty be granted to the draft-dodgers.
A.
No, Squire, I can't believe in a blanket amnesty for
deserters or draft-dodgers that fled the country. I think after
every war, I think every case is an individual case, it should be
treated as an individual case. If someone wants to make his
plea with degard to why he did what he did, and go through the
legal processes regarding this, that's the way it should be done.
But DO simply give a blanket amnesty with the knowledge that logic
would indicate that some of these people just simply -- well, they
were not sincere objectors and that they simply ran out, I just
don't think you can do this.
Q.
Governor, what's the size of your budget proposal now?
Do you expect it to increase any more before the Legislature votes
on it?
A.
Well, there are always augmentations and things that come
along in a budget. The size of the budget isabout 7.68, I believe.
I realize that question ispprobably prompted by the new mathematics
that was practiced by the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
I sent him a card yesterday on his 19th birthday.
(Laughter)
Q.
Governor, back to the Priolo bill of last year, you said that
-11-
you played no par
in the negotiations on th
Workman's Compensation
plan, is that right?
A.
Well, as Ed just told you, we negotiated out a package of
bills that did all of the things that were needed to be done and
everyone was in agreement on it and a single package went through
and it was a very progressive bill and it was a great improvement
with regard to labor and their gains.
Q.
One question on the Priolo bill itself, that biill would
preclude the admission of evidence as to the violation of safety
workers -- it would be a violation of state law. How can your
administration justify the admission of such evidence in cases --
A.
I don't know that we have to or that it is necessary. You
are -- again, you are asking about something now, and as I say with
almost 5,000 bills introduced, the thousands that I had to sign
and the hundreds that had to be vetoed, it is impossible for me with
no notice and without looking back at the record and the minutes
in our discussion, on this, to tell you what was the rationale
behind the action that was taken. But I'm sure it was a sound
rationale.
Q.
Governor, on another subject, have you decided on your
building plans for your ranch in Rivorside County?
A.
No, as a matter of fact I just own it and pay taxes on it
because so far the nearest power is eight miles away and the nearest
water is a long ways away. And when we bought it we were told
that all of that would be in and available within two years and then
the people that told us that, they are no longer connected with
the company we bought it from. And we should have had it in writing.
Q.
Is that why your Real Estate Commissionermis: reorganizing
department?
(Laughter)
A.
I don't think the reorganization of the department can
help me a bit. I've got some beautiful scenery and some beautiful
land up there, but if you go take a canteen of water with you.
Q.
Governor, does Mr. Beck's new assignment signal for you some
does
new speech making roles nationwide or what/ix Mr. Beck's assignment
mean?
A.
No, it just means a reshuffling in the department, it means that
there is only a limited time that a fellow can take you fellows and
changes have to be made. A certain element of combat fatigue
enters.
&
How does that affect Mr. Jenkins' position?
ED MEESE:
He remains the same.
A.
Remains the same.
Q.
Mr. Beck is not taking over any of his functions?
A.
No, no.
Q.
The move then was made more out of sympathy for Mr. Beck
than out of sympathy for the press?
(Laughter)
A.
Yes, try as I might, while I enjoy your companionship even
oftener than this, once a week, at the same time I find myself
crying for you very seldom.
Q.
Governor, would you comment on Speaker Moretti's poll showing a
declire in your popularity. There have also been articles in the
newapapers, Harper's on the same --
A.
So far he hasn't revealed that poll and I haven't had any
such poll, só I don't know what he's talking about. Sometimes
it just seems to me that he goes on knowing more and more about
less and less until one day he may know everything about nothing.
(Laughter)
Q.
You don't feel your mandate with the people is slipping?
A.
What?
Q.
You don't feel your mandate with the people is slipping?
A.
Well, all I know is I'm still trying to do the things that
I said I would do when I was elected the first time, and when I was
re-elected, and we have gotten some of them done, most notable
being the welfare reform. And I would appreciate all the help that
Bob wants to give me or anyone else in achieving the rest of those
objectives. The people seem to approve them when they voted and
I see no reason to change in trying to get them.
Q.
Governor, back to welfare briefly, you said there was quite
a backlog of fair hearings for reducing the welfare rolls. Does
this mean you anticipate a continuation of reductions in case loads
or another great reduction or what do you mean?
A.
Oh, no, we know that it has to level off. As a matter of
is
fact, every indication/that it is coming to a leveling off period.
That was just logical. We were surprised, I think, as long as it
went and with the great reduction, particularly when we had to counter
this against the unctrollable rise we had. But it is under control
now and it was out of control before.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
GOVERNORE REAGAN: Say, while the rest of you don 't think
I'm cheaing on you or anything, I thought if we had about two minutes
I'd go back here and see if some of our student journalists had a
question or two. I'll go back to the back of the room for that.
-13-