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
118564128
label
Transcripts - 10/12/1972, 10/25/1972, 11/08/1972, 12/12/1972
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564128
contentType
document
title
Transcripts - 10/12/1972, 10/25/1972, 11/08/1972, 12/12/1972
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
118564128
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
0e5b8eb0d83f255e
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 -
10/12/1972, 10/25/1972, 11/08/1972, 12/12/1972
Box: P04
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
10/12
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD OCTOBER 12, 1972
Reported
by:
Governor's Press Office (RAS)
(This rough transcript of the Governor's Press Conference in Los Angeles
is furnished to the members of the Capitol Press Corps for their con--
venience only. Because some of the newsmen's questions were inaudible
on our tape, recording, it is impossible in some cases to include the
entire question.)
-0-
O
World Affairs Council (inaudible)
A
Well, I spoke about what I think is the need for us not to go
back into a policy of isolationism. I mentioned specifically my belief
that that is one of the issues of the present political campaign that
one side is advocating whether they admit it or not--an isolationist
policy for America--and I think it would take us toward war and not
toward peace. I spoke then of my recent trip to Europe and the earlier
trip to Asia for the President in which I was asked to go as an
emissary delivery certain messages for him in several countries in
Europe, previous to that, in Asia. And that was the gist of it.
O
Governor, what is your position on Proposition 15 on the state
ballot, the one that deals with state employees and the other
(inaudible).
A
I'm opposed to both, first of all to Proposition 15, and I must
say, I have been amazed with talk in a campaign year that there always
is of falsifying issues. I have been amazed at the kind of literature
that has been put out in behalf of Proposition 15, pretending that
this is something that will hold down government costs and hold salaries
down. That just is not the case at all and is not even the reason why
it was put on the ballot. Basically, it is a proposition to take out
of the hands of whoever is administering the state government, and
almost take out of the hands of the legislature, although it gives them
a kind of two-thirds veto power, the ability to budget and put into
budgeting the factor of employees salaries. So I'm opposed to that.
As to the Highway Patrol, they have put one in that would also
take away any flexibility with regard to the administration handling it.
It's harder for me to be against 16 only for the simple reason that I
think the Highway Patrol is a part of state government that every
Californian should be very proud of. I think the men and their devo-
tion to duty, and the record that the California Highway Patrol has is
superior to anything I know, not only in our state, but in the country.
-1-
And I have sought over these past few years, when e've had economic
difficulties, to try and rectify what I thought was some of the
inequities with regard to the Highway Patrol. I still want to do that
and I believe in the year ahead we are going to be able to do that.
So I'm not opposed to 16 on any basis of believing that the Highway
Patrol is not deserving of all that we can do for them. But it would
be bad administration; it would take away from those who are elected to
administer the state government a great part of their administrative
duties and abilities.
O
What would you like to see replace
(inaudible)
CHP
(inaudible)
on the
(inaudible)
committee's proposition, with
the advent of the information that he has indicated that while they
still write citations for the things they consider deserving of
citation, that the emphasis be more on being in view of the motorist
with the idea of deterring him from violating the law and not being
so ticket happy, so to speak, as they have been for a helluva long
time. Does this meet with your approval? Do you feel that this is a
healthy frame
or that it would be helpful
(inaudible)
?
A
Well, Pudinski is the first man who is an actual Highway Patrol
type, I mean a traffic officer whose entire knowledge and experience
is not in law enforcement so much as in the problems of traffic super-
vision, and I have every confidence in him. If this is what will do
the job, I back him completely.
(11)
or
Governor, the proposition on the ballot dealing with the death
since
penalty, if it is passed ( and/the Supreme Court has declared capital
punishment unconstitutional ) do you think voting is going to be a
wasted effort for it, or is this going to be declared
(inaudible)
like it is unconstitutional?
A
Well, I don't think so because our interpretation of the United
States Supreme Court decision was that the way that it has been
administered by the state so far too vague. But this idea of
it
isn't specifically spelled out
and the interpretation that our own
legal counsel has given us is what the United States Supreme Court was
saying, not the California court. We're trying to reverse the California
court decision with our ballot proposition. But the United States court
was saying that the states, by legislation, by statute, should be more
specific, to spell out what were those crimes that they believed should
specifically have the death penalty. In other words, take some of the
decision away from the jury on this, that if the jury found a person
-2-
guilty of a specific crime, and that crime called for the death penalty,
that would be it. The jury would not then come back and separately
establish the sentence. I think that what would be needed, if we
passed this ballot, then it will be up to the legislature to pass and
adopt those specific crimes for which they are going to have the death
penalty. And I'm quite sure there would be test cases of some of
those the first time that you have someone convicted, or sentenced,
that they probably, on appeal, run it though the Supreme Court. Perhaps
some states, even our own, might find that our statutes didn't meet
what they had in mind and there would be some changes. But, that's
our interpretation. And so therefore I don't think it's a wasted
effort; I think we should vote for the death penalty, and I do believe
that it is still constitutional, in spite of the court decision.
2
Governor, one of the State Supreme justices has said that he
thought that the majority of the public had misinterpreted and misunder-
stood their decision. Do you agree with that?
A
I don't know how you could misinterpret the state court's
decision. The state court said it was against the California State
Constitution, that it was unconstitutional in ours. Very frankly, I'm
a little impatient with them, and the only think that I could find
were
they/hanging it on was the use of the word "or" and "and". In other
words, our phraseology in our Constitution differed from the United
States Constitution by saying "cruel or unusual punishment" instead of
"cruel and unusual punishment", or vice versa, I can't remember which
one is which which seemed a pretty thin thing on which to hang their
decision.
our
Q
Governor, what caused specifically the
(inaudible)
of/death
penalty; where do you see
(inaudible)"
A
Well, I certainly think that consideration should be given to
highjacking. But I think that the outright, premeditated, cold-blooded
murder, particularly of the criminal type, certainly should be one. I
think the consideration
I
think that all of this in the legislative
process, with hearings and so forth, should lead to decisions. But I
think that we've proved over a period of years, until court decisions
changed it, that the kidnapping0-the Lindburgh kidnapping law--had
resulted in a great decrease in kidnappings. And this certainly should
be considered as one. I myself have favored that the murder of a
policeman while on duty should be a capital offense. And I've asked
for that from the legislature for two years now, and in the two years
-3-
that they have buried his in committee and faile to act on it, there
have been more than score of police and correctional officers who have
been brutally murdered. I think when a criminal kills a policeman in
the commission of a crime, you have to say that this is a man who
premeditated, and who knew that if he was apprehended, he was going to
kill a policeman.
been
but
O
Governor, I know it's/brought up before,/the question of security
is pertinent in light of what has happened in Chino and Washington, D.C.
Can you do anything now to insure tighter security measures in California
prisons?
A
Well, yes, for one thing we're adding 400 correctional officers,
even though the prison population is down. What has actually happened
in our state, and I'm sure this is true in many other states, in our
state we have had a probation and parole policy which in recent years
has resulted in a great decline (we've closed six institutions--mainly
juvenile institutions; we're going to close San Quentin), but, you once
had a society in prison where for every violent pathological type
criminal you had a number who were con men check artists, sometimes
first time or one time offenders. Now these men have a sentence to
serve; they want to get it over with as pleasantly as they can possibly
make a prison, if it is possible to make it pleasant, and they want to
get out. They don't want someone making trouble. So there was a
period, up until the last few years, when if a guard, for example, were
assaulted, you would have a half dozen prisoners go to his rescue and
pull the other fellow off. They were part of the social structure of
the prison. Now you have those men on probation separated out--and
you have a great increase in the proportion of the percentage of the
truly violent. The difference as it was explained to me one day by a
correctional officer is he said now, if a con jumps one of us, six
other convicts jump us also. And so there's only one way that you can,
you have to recognize then that you now have have maximum security type
prisoners and that's why we are increasing the guard. Now there's
going to be more than one guard and system whereby when trouble breaks
out, you can get help.
0
It's also been said, though, that some of the inmates, if this
is the right word to use, have too much freedom inside the cell
that
they can get phone calls, access to writing letters when they feel like
it, free visitation rights. Can't that be toughened up a bit?
-4-
A
Yes, just recently I complained to the bar association about a
court decision that has now said that the custom of reading convicts'
mail, in and out, can no longer go on between the
that you can't
read it if it's between the prisoner and his lawyer, because this is
violating the client-lawyer relationship. And as I said to the bar
association a few weeks ago, where do you draw the line between the
client-lawyer relationship, the privileged relationship, and client-
lawyer sometimes conspiracy, to effect another crime or a breaking out
of prison. And I think we've got to use some common sense and reason.
O
Governor, were you taken by surprise to learn that the two
officers taking Baty to court in San Bernardino over an alleged
mixup over dates were not armed?
A
Not until I read the rap sheet on the man himself. Now, it
was my understanding that in an institution of that kind, that the
correctional officers who customarily are not armed, because to go
into the prison armed, of course you're inviting someone to take an
effort to get that weapon, the fact that he was shackled and chained
and that this has been customary. But, what does seem unusual, and
I've asked our people to find out about it, was the nature of this
criminal. Usually when this is done, when correctional officers take
him at all, it is not that kind of prisoner. They normally then have
sheriffs' deputies who are armed deliver the men
who are actually
law enforcement officers. But when I saw the record on this man,
he's not only got a record of escapes, this is a man who is, who has
been responsible for the death of others; this is a man who has a
record of violence, and it did disturb me very much.
Q
Governor, on the same question, have you ordered an investiga-
tion by the
(inaudible) commission?
A
Well, when you say investigation, this calls to mind a kind of
a formal hearing type of thing. If that should develop, if that's
required, that will happen. But, what I say is, I turn to our legal
affairs people and I say I want to know what the H--- happened and we
go from there.
O
Governor, Senator Cranston has stated unequivocally that you'll
be the man he will be facing in '74 for his Senate seat, Can you give
us a
comment on that?
A
Well, Senator Cranston, I wish he'd deal with some of the
problems confronting California now in 1972 instead of looking ahead
to his own fate in 1974. I haven't made any decision yet about
-5-
Senator Cranston. No if that's keeping him awake nights, I couldn't
be happier.
0
Governor, one more thing. In your status regarding the state
fiscal stance of cutting the income tax and increasing or adding one
percent sales tax, do you feel, sir, that by doing that you would in
fact be feeding the incomes of the poor who spend 100 percent
of their income as opposed to the wealthier elements of society who
perhaps don't spend anywhere near that amount?
A
No, there are several reasons that made us do this. First of
all, all of our surveys over four years have shown that the tax, that
the people said they would like to have increased in order to reduce
the property tax, 80 percent of them have said that it should be the
sales tax. Only around 25 percent have ever indicated that their
choice would be the income tax. So this is one factor. This is what
the people themselves want. The second thing is that the sales tax,
number one, is paid, a good portion of it, a third or more, is paid
by business as well as the individual. But the other part of it is
in a state that has a great tourist trade, the sales tax gets us outside
money, and other people come in here and help pay the taxes for
Californians. And I don't find that all that unfair since California
is one of those states that in all the federal programs contributes
more than it ever gets back. And the income tax, of course, falls
totally on California wage earners.
Q
There was a recent story today that it seems quite probable
that Congress will approve federal revenue sharing and the money will
be distributed before the end of this month, possibly beginning in
November. How will that affect the state's posture in regard to
taxation.
A
Well, we've already committed our share--the state's share--to
the plan I announced the other day for a tax cut and for the refinancing
of the public school system. We have committed our total share of
federal revenue sharing to that program. We expect that that should
produce about $200 million new money for the low-wealth school
districts.
Q
Governor, you talked to Lieutenant Governor Reinecke, and you
said that it's about time somebody did too much, or went too far, to
stop and finish, because maybe it's impossible to go too far. Do you
think it's impossible to go too far
(inaudible)?
-6-
A
Well, I suppose if you envision going over to the totally
managed press or something, that would be too far. But I think what
the Lieutenant Governor meant, and I'm in complete agreement with him
on this, is that in the past in an effort on the part of people to not
vote against
cross over some line into free speech, their/efforts to curb
pornography have been taken by the pornographers and even by some
who are entrusted with enforcing the law, to mean that the people
aren't concerned. And I think it is time for the people, by their
vote, even if there are some shortcomings that then have to be
corrected by subsequent in whatever measures have been presented,
and I don't think that there are as many as are being presented by
the opponents of this measure on the ballot, I think that is time
that the people serve notice that they are fed up with it, that they'd
had enough of it. They've had enough of it on the screen; they've
had enought of it in literature; they've had enough of it in the stuff
that is mailed to their children. I wish you could see the collection
that I have not kept, that I have received from parents who send to
me from all over the United States, the stuff that their teenaged and
their under-aged children receive and with a California dateline.
And that's why they send it to me. And I don't keep it; I pass it on
to the authorities that I think might be interested in the particular
area where it has come from. But it is just filthy, hardcore
pornography, and I can understand any parent (I'm a parent myself),
when your child can get on a sucker list, a mailing list and receive
this kind of stuff in the mail, I think it's time for the people to
serve notice. And I hope they will serve notice.
(18)
O
Governor, if you serve notice, and this proposition is passed,
do you fear that there may be some opposition from the Supreme Court,
since the majority of issues dealing with pornography have eventually
ended up in the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would be
(inaudible)
A
Well, there's a chance we have to take. But at least, I think
that it would still do some good. Even if the worst should happen to
it, I think that the good it would do would again serve notice on
those people not only in law enforcement, but in the legislature,
people in government, that the citizens want something done about this.
And if this isn't the right way to do it, you can't tell me that a
society that can put people on the moon can't find a way to put these
fellows out of business.
-7-
0
Governor, Mond the Los Angeles Times rar a headline that the
State of California has 41 percent welfare fraud. Could you tell me
where they got these figures from?
A
Yes. This figure, and I regret that some people, and even the
welfare director of the county of Los Angeles here, seems to think that
this was 41 percent fraud in the entire program of welfare. Now this
was a check run on the proportion, that percentage, of the welfare
people who are receiving welfare but who also have outside incomes.
And the fraud, whether deliberate or accidental, and that has yet to
be determined, is results from their understating their outside income
for purposes of getting a welfare grant, or they're overstating their
welfare need. And perhaps some is legitimate error, some obviously is
fraud. But it was 41 percent of that segment of welfare, and these
figures were obtained from the checks that we can now run, computer
checks, on the information given by the welfare recipient compared to
the information given by his employer who pays him the outside income.
And this countercheck, you will remember, they brought a lawsuit to
try to stop us from doing that, and the court ruled that it was legal
and if we had any, the right of any government to check, we have two
departments of government one of them in the income tax gets all of
the statements on a person's earnings, and the other department is the
welfare department, and they get the person's statement on what those
earnings are. And there's no reason in the world why we can't check
them, and that's where we got the figures.
2
Governor, what are the chances of your property tax reforms
passing the legislature next year?
A
Well, they don't have to pass the legislature in November.
All the legislature has to do is vote that they can go on the ballot,
and then I will call a special election. Now, it's possible, we
thought, that some legislators who might vote against the tax program
as such would vote to allow the people to make that decision, just as
I've signed about 13 measures, sent down to the legislature to put
things on the ballot, and many of them I disagreed with. But I did
not disagree with the right of the people to make that decision. I
hope the legislature will feel the same way about this one. If they
don't, then I'm going to head up a campaign to circulate the petitions
and to put it on the ballot, and I will call a special election for that
purpose by way of petition.
-8-
or
Do you believe a lot of people will be voting for the Watson
Amendment because there has not been reform in the past several years?
A
Oh, I think that we hear any number of people when
I
get
out
campaigning and in the local areas here where our legislators are
running, I hear any number of people say that they know the Watson
Amendment is a bad measure. But they're a little mad and they say
that it's the only game in town. So, now they've got another game.
or
Governor, relative to the California Bar Association's posture
on the legalization of prostitution, do you feel that would be a good
move or bad one?
A
I think it would be a bad move.
Or
Why is that?
A
Well, there is a moral law and there is a man made law. And
we've always recognized in our civilization both of these, the higher
law as well as the governmental law, and there's no question about the
moral law with regard to this. And I just think today, in today's
climate of permissiveness where we have seen so many basic values
chastised for government to take a position that seemingly endorses
and puts approval on what is an immorality is the wrong way for
government to go.
Of
Governor, not long ago, Sheriff Pitchess said that he would
agree with legalizing prostitution if would control VD, and it would
also free a lot of officers who are on the vice squad to go after dope
peddlers and so forth. What do you think of that comment?
A
Well, perhaps we're in disagreement on that. But I remember
back in World War II when the Army, where there were large Army
encampments, and in many areas there was local legalized prostitution,
the Army went in and closed it up. And I was of the frame of mind
the
then, I said wait a minute, you know, is the right way to go? And I
had it explained to me by the medical officers of the Army as to why.
They said that their only interest was in keeping healthy soldiers,
the control of VD. And they were able to prove by statistics that
legalized prostitution, even with the regular inspections and so forth,
medical inspections, had something like four or five times the
capacity of spreading venereal disease as did breaking it up and
putting it out illicitly on the street. And they had the actual
statistics. And I found that you may disagree with the Army on a lot
of things, but where their own interests are concerned, their statistics
are usually pretty sound.
-9-
O
Governor, the county's own figures now cate, the county
health department in Los Angeles now indicate that VD as it might be
spread by prostitution is at the lowest percent
(inaudible)
that is transferred by prostitution, that VD problems are from other
areas.
A
Oh, no question about it. This goes back to what I said
earlier about the permissiveness, the humanist philosophy that has
been encouraged over recent decades, the drift away from moral laws.
Yes.
Q
If that's the case though, wouldn't that be the least reason
of all to object to legalized prostitution?
A
No, I was answering a question here about this and what it
might do with regard to venereal disease control, and I was putting
myself on the other side from my friend, Sheriff Pitchess on that.
But on this one, I just, let me just say this one thing about the
other thing. This is a totally different problem that you're talking
about. This is a problem of young and underaged boys and girls that
have been taught and told and encouraged in the humanist philosophy
by some of the pornography we earlier talked about, sometimes even in
the classroom, with the idea that if they want to do something, it's
alright for them to do it. And there is no penalty. And when you
turn that to the point that under our welfare laws, tens of thousands
of underaged girls can get in trouble, and the government cooperates
with them in keeping their trouble secret from their parents and
provides them with a taxpayer's paid-for abortion, of course, you're
going to have promiscuity. Everything that you used to be a restraint
has been taken off on this. And I would like to see us come back the
other way. The best way to not get it is to not do it.
O
My point was that if VD as created by prostitution is at such
a low point, as the county health department says it is, isn't that
a rather
(inaudible)
which to determine legalizing prostitution?
A
Well, no. I would think that it would be the other way around.
If the sheriff is saying that we would control VD by legalizing
prostitution and prostitution isn't causing it, then it's his argu-
ment that is specious.
-10-
0
Governor, in all fairness to the sheriff, I interviewed him
this morning, he said he was misquoted by the Times.
A
I'm glad to hear that.
0
He says his department's position has been and is that he is
against prostitution, not only in terms of that, he said all of the
medical evidence proves it to the contrary. This is the Norfolk, Va.
study.
A
I'm delighted to hear that because he and I have been friends
too long to even be on opposite sides on this.
O
Governor, we just talked to a George Moscone who said that
there's every indication that Senator McGovern is not trailing by as
much as previously, but he's closing ground. Have you any indication
that President Nixon is losing ground?
A
No. But I would think that the Senator is trying to make news
out of something that's been a prediction of the Republicans for a
long time. Anybody that believes in the polls as they have been early
in the campaign, are going to continue that way is pretty politically
naive. The great undecided vote, a great many of them are Democrats
who are not swept off their feet by Senator McGovern, but they still
are Democrats. And having been one myself, I frequently have stated
that I know what they're feeling. I know that as you get closer to
election day, party loyalty is going to exert itself. And I think
you can quote MacGregor on that, I think John Mitchell has been heard
to say it. Any number of people have said that as you come close to
election day, that's when the polls will begin to even up, because
the overwhelming majority of any party is not going to defect from
the party.
0
Governor, after the retirement of Dr. Hayakawa, do you know
about any of his future plans for politics in the State of California?
A
No, I don't. He did discuss with me when he considered running
for the Senate some time ago, he discussed that and told me of his
intention to stay with education. So I don't know what his plans are.
But I must say on the basis of his record with the University, whatever
he chooses to do, I wish him well.
0
I've noticed that there's been a preponderance of suggestions
that the Republican Party is corrupt for one reason or another. Do
you think that is all political flack, or do you think there is any
substance at all to these many, many charges that are brought up in
the election?
A
Maybe I shouldn't plug one channel here, but last night I
happened to be watching Billy Graham interviewed by Merve Griffin on
that show, and this particular question came up. And I thought that
-11-
Billy Graham gave about as good an explanation as simple an
explanation as possible. I think it's political and I think it's
campaign talk. But what he was pointing is that to suggest that any
president, and he certainly has known a number of them, and been a
close intimate of both parties and he speaks of them as close friends,
this goes back to Kennedy, Johnson, Truman, Richard Nixon but he
said when you stop to think that a president has several thousand
commissions and boards and departments alone, that are supposed to
report directly to him, and to believe that this great bureaucracy
is going to be any more moral than the general run of citizens, that
there's no way in the world that a president can know about this,
because if you want to go back to all the things they are trying to
bring up, well, then, what about under Kennedy, the 65 shiploads of
wheat headed for Austria that disappeared, and to this day no one has
ever known what has happened to the wheat and where it went, or who
sold it, or who got the money, or the wheat. There was the salad oil
scandal. And these things go on. I think that these are the things
that any elected official lives with every day of his life. You go
to bed at night with the knowledge that you've done your best to see
and to hope that those people that you've directly appointed meet the
standards that you want them to meet. But there can be someone, while
is
your sleeping,/doing something he shouldn't do and it breaks over
your head, and of course, technically you're responsible because you're
the chief executive. But this has gone on. And the answer to it,
as Billy Graham said last night on the show, the answer is to do what
the President has had to do---decentralize government and wind down
that gigantic bureaucracy to a place where it is manageable. Let me
give you one figure. The Secretary of the Interior has 70,000
employees. He can appoint 70. Now, there is no way in the world
that he and his 70 appointees can keep a hand on, and an eye on,
70,000 people who have been there through several presidents and who
think that the show is theirs and who run it to suit themselves. And
this is true of the Department of Agriculture; it's true of many other
departments. And I think it goes along with government, and it's
noticeable that if you trace back all the scandals, how very few of
them involve an elected official. Once in awhile one comes up. But
mainly they're in that permanent structure of government where a
fellow is in the warm cocoon of civil service and he feels he's in his
job forever and ever and no one can touch him, and he looks at whoever
is elected and says I'll be here after he's gone, and this is where
your scandals occur.
Well, thank you all very much.
Thank you, governor.
-12-
PRES CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
Held October 25, 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 correnctions are made
and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
o00
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, good morning.
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read press release No 580)
Q.
Governor, don't you think you are partially responsable
(Prop.)
for 15, for recalling what the Legislature gave the state employees
and then taking it back?
A.
No, because once again the safeguard in there is if by a
two-thirds majority the Legislature thinks that my veto has been
wrong, they can override that veto. Now, the Governor is responsible
for the budget and is accountable for the size of it. And
therefore I've had to reckon in all of the priorities without
giving one of them just an automatic position above all others.
O.
Are you acknowledging then that state employees are under-
paid $73 million dollars worth this current year?
A.
No. As a matter of fact, the only way of course that such
a thing could have been adopted, the pay increase at the beginning of the
the austerity year, the year that is passed, would have been had
we -- had we passed a tax increase at that time. Now, this
year we have -- we are in the first of the two phases of correcting
these inequities that we believe we have found with regard to
comparative salaries. We have promised and we will keep the promise
that the second phase will go forward beginning in July 1st of the
coming year. In addition to that we have a study going forward on
the whole subject of state employees in every area, every king of work
comparison with people doing that same kind of work in other employ-
ment, so that we can have a -- a long range salary schedule plan
that will make sure that we have no inequities of the kind that
have been complained about in the past.
Q.
Governor, are you acknowledging then that there are
inequities at the present time? You say in your press release that
you have a fair salary level in f the future. Does that mean that
some of the salaries are not fair now?
-1-
A.
What W. found and the thing we hat tried to correct,
differing from just whether anyone gets a blanket pay raise, is the --
the fact that there are certain areas of employment within the
state that we believe have been out of line with similar employment
outside the state. We found this with regard to engineers. And
we have set out and that's why this year and in them ming year, the
salary raises that we adopted were varied. It was just not a blanket
cost of living inc rease across the state. We attempted to bring
some of these areas of employment up to what we thought was a
proper level.
Q.
Governor, will your budget in Janury have a cost of living
increase for state employees? Will there be an across the --
across the board increase in addition to correcting inequities?
A.
I think there will be an across the board increase but there 1
also be these certain areas where there will be corrected inequities.
O.
Governor, what is your position on Proposition 16?
A.
Proposition 16?
O.
Yes.
A.
This is much the same thing. Once again you would be
taking thematter of employment compensation in the state out of the
hands of the elected officials.
O.
Why didn't you --
A.
I'm opposed to 16. I have a -- as you know, I am
extremely partial to the Highway Patrol. I think this is a group
of men that -- they have few equals or matches any place in the
country, and I want them to have what is the proper compensation.
I cannot hold -- and they know this, with 16 as a method of doing
it. But 16 -- or, I mean, the Highway Patrol is one of the groups
that we are going to ensure are brought up to the proper level.
Q.
Why didn't you include Proposition 16 in here with 15
then in your prepared statement?
A.
Well, because I don't think their advertising has been as
false and dishonest as the advertising of 15. This was the --
my main complaint, is that, as I said in here, the only way that
the advertising for Propossition 15 could be honest is if you kept
the ads the way they were with the one exception that you change the
final line to "Vote No," instead of "Vote Yes."
O.
Governor Reagan, in the same accusations made about
Proposition 20, that if you left it the same and changed it to
"Vote Yes," they have "Don't lock up the beach." Now, are you
A.
No.
I
opposed to Proposition 2
I think that
what has happened to us with the Court decision on Mammoth, that is
actually very hurtful to this state's economy and to people's jobs
and is causing unemployment. I think that what we are seeing
as a result of that court decision is nothing to what we will see
if Proposition 20 passes. I think we would go into stagnation
that will result in a loss of thousands of jobs.
O.
Are you opposed to the faleeness of the advertising,
Whitaker and Baxter then?
A.
I think that you are referring to the advertising on
padlocking the beaches.
o
That's right.
A.
I have to say that I know that the point is supposed to
be, and Proposition 20 would in a sense freeze privately owned
property, individuals who own property in this area along the coast
and not just beach property, but for a distance inland, and yet I agree
that the padlocking is misleading in that it portrays to the people
the idea that they would no longer have access to -- to the beach.
That is not true. And I would wish that they had advertised on what
I think are really the basic faults of 20. As I have told
you so many times, I respect the -- not only the right, but the
capacity of the people to know and to understand. Now, Proposition
20 is a horrendous thing. It absolutely should not pass. It is
true that the right of an individual even to add a bedroom to
his home ifhe's within 3,000 feet of the ocean would besubject
to being stopped if it was going to cost him $7500 to add that
bedroom. In that sense he is padlocked in on his ability to --
to do anything with his property or his home. But this -- I agree
this is misleading. It has given the impression to the people
that they can't use the beaches. I do not hold with that adver-
tising. I do hold for the fact that Proposition 20 is unnecessary.
It will not improve what we are trying to do along the coastline.
It will not protect the coastline and it will cause a terrible
disruption for great distances inhand.
O.
What would you do about these misleading advertising --
advertisements?
A.
Well, I think it is a subject to look into. Particularly
far more than with candidates. There is a lot of lying going on
in that field today. I think the -- I think the whole subject
of initiatives should be looked into very carefully. I think that
-3-
out of the people's frustration with the failure of the Legislature
in the last sessions to --- to resolve many of the serious problems
we are putting a great reliance on them even though I myself am
now proposing such an initiative with regard to taxes. But this,
and the advertising on them is -- is a far different problem. You
are talking about an action andprojecting what that action will do,
and maybe with the fair campaign practices group we should find out
some ways to properly advertise and promote these issues.
O.
Governor, one proposed solution would be to the creation
of some -- variety of state commission to review and regulate the
claims of these propositions. Will you support some thought like
that?
A.
Well, I don't get into any specifics because as I say
it is something that I think is going to have to be looked at as
to what we do with them.
c
Governor, on another subject. U. S. News and World Report
has an item saying that you are in intrigued shrink with the idea of being a
roving ambassador for the Nixon administration, sort of like a
Republican Averill Harriman. Do you have any comment on that?
?
Well, that's their idea. No one has ever talked to me
about anything of the kind. I'm glad to see that I am no longer
ssing tagged by the press as a -- as a candidate for a particular
imbassadorship which -- is something I would not want. I must admit
I've been on three missions fo r the President, already, as you know.
I would be very honored to do any other missions of that kind,
either while I'm Governor or later on if they have any which I could
be helpful.
O.
Governor, Seantor Cranston keeps saying you are going
to be his opposition in 1974 in the Senate. Does he know something
we don't know either?
A.
No, I think Senator Cranston shot an arrow inbo the air
and like everything else he tries to do, it fell to earth and he
knows not where.
O.
Do you know where it fell?
A.
Not --
O.
Then you are not going to run for the Senate.
A.
I didn't say that and I'll answer his question, too. I
don't know. I don't know what I'm going to do in '74.
-4-
Q.
Governor, there is also speculation that you might under
certain circumstances be persuaded to run for a third term.
Do
you conceive of that happening?
A.
No, no one's proposed such a thing to me.
O.
Well, can you conceive of it happening? No?
A.
No, can't seeanything that would -- cause me to change
my mind,
O.
Do you conceive running for President in '76? How
about that, here I've just said and I've repeatedly said I don't
know what is going to happen in '72, and I'm sure I don't know what's
going to happen in '74, and he's asking about '76. Would you like
to go back to '66.
O.
How about Proposition 4, the legislative initiative or
amendment?
A.
The two-year session.
Q.
Are you for that or against it?
A.
Now, here again, let me propose neutrality. This is
once I've tried to keep my nose out of their affairs and I wish
it were mutual. But no, I'll just -- however, I may personally
feel in voting, I'll keep to myself and I won't make any comment
on that.
2.
Governor, does your proposal for initiative mean that
when the legislature comes back in two weeks younare not going to
(tax relief)
support that SB 90 or AB 1000 in the Senate? Are you through
with that?
A.
What mine means is exactly what I said, that for four
years with an open mind we have met them and tried to find a way
with the Legislature. We have been balked by a very tiny group
of legislators, not the majority by any means, in the Senate.
And I have come to theconclusion that the only thing now is to
guarantee to the people that they will have the right to make this
decision. And that's what I'm going to do.
O.
So is that bill dead then as far as your support of it is
concerned, the proposal that failed by a couple votes?
A.
I will have an open mind if someone wants to come to
me and talk about this, but it is going to have to meet the
conditions that I have outlined already for number one, returning
themoney to the -- to the people by way of tax reduction, and
guaranteeing that such adtax reduction will stay in effect and be
permanent.
O.
Then are you saying now that that bill will have to be
amended for you to support it? If Mr. Moretti wants to try to
revive it.
A.
I think there are decisions that have to be made now,
would have to be made about that bill anyway. Because, if you
will remember, the bill had certain open clauses in it because we
did not know for dertain either about revenue sharing or what our
surplus would be. Now that we do have those figures, yes, there
would have to be some decisions made.
O.
Governor, do you agree with any of the claims or previous
claims that the advertising on Proposition 22 was false and mis-
leading?
A.
I think the advertising against 22 is pretty misleading.
I don't see anything wrong and never have with allowing workers to
vote by secret ballot so that they are free of coercion, as to
whether they want to be represented and who they want to represent
them.
And I'm for 22.
Q.
The charges involve the -- how it was represented when
signatures were gathered. Do you agree with any of that evidence?
A.
Well, that seems to have passed overlike so many things
that have wafted out of the Secretary of State's office. They get
a flurry of attention from all of you in the press and then they
go into limbo some place, and we never hear any more about it.
O.
Mr. Bush in Los Angeles hasn't gone into limbo, he said
that he is going to ask the Grand Jury for indictments against the
firm that circulated those petitions in those --
A.
All right, but I also recall reading where he never had
anything presented to him -- as I recall he said, but hearsay
evidence and gossip that there were people that felt they had been
misrepresented and as I said, if this is true, certainly if there
is punishment to be meted out it should be meted out and if there
are names that do not want to be on those petitions, those names should
be deleted and if that brings it down. less than the level necessary
to put it on the ballot, then that also should follow. But sò: far
there seems to be no indication that it has been that widespread.
-6-
O.
Governor, on tax reform, the people will have a choice
then November 7 with the Watson amendment. Why do you continue
to oppose it?
A.
I continue to oppose it because I think it would bring
fiscal chaos. Here is a measure that would freeze into the
Constitution 1,800,000,000 of tax increqses and it falls roughly
a billion two -- a billion and a quarter short of being balanced.
And yet I don't think the people have been properly aware of that.
As a matter of fact, the proponents of Proposition 14 keep insisting
that this is false, this is not true. And I heard the Speaker
of the Assembly on television just last night on the news programs
and he was complaining that that is only true if you believe that
the people of California would sit back content to have 771,000,000
dollars taken away in their school districts without asking the
state to make up that loss. And of course they would ask to make
it up. You cannot have school districts like Los Angeles and
San Francisco virtually cut, their budgets in half, and that is
what -- this is what has happened. Now there are a number of gigantic
tax increases, they are tax increases leveled at the individual.
It totally throws our tax structure out of balance because in an
attempt to give property tax relief he has gone across the board
giving 70 per cent of the relief to -- to business. And with
business this can become a recoverable item. This is in their --
their production costs. And wethink -- the thing that I wish
people could understand is we did not set out to be opposed to 14.
After trying for four years to get property tax relief we studied 14,
believe me, with a hope and a prayer in our hearts that this would
be the answer. That finally with the failure of the legislature
we could get it done. It was with the greatest reluctance that
we found that this is not the answer. This is going to, as I say,
create chaos fiscally in the state.
Q.
New subject.
O.
No, on the same subject. Governor, the Speaker also says
that he'd be delighted to put a tax initiativeon the ballot side by
side with yours which would be aimed at closing loopholes. Would
you welcome that?
A.
Well, of course here again, and this is what we are
hearing at the national level, all this talk about loopholes in a
tax structure. First of all, the tax structure doesn't bear my
trademark and it certainly doesn't bear a Republican trademark,
either California or nationally. Andif these great structural
faults existed these so=called loopholes for all theseyears, why
hasn't someone on the other side when they have had the majority and even
occupied the Governor's office, and the White House -- why haven't
they done something about them? The plain truth of the matter is
they are talking about some pretty legitimate deductions. Now in
California, as I said in an address a short time ago, the California
state income tax is very steeply progressive. And 47 per cent of
the people in California, wage earners from about $10,000 on up, are
paying 91 per cent of the total tax. And therefore I don't know
where these loopholes are supposed to be found.
Q.
Governor, what is your stand on the obscenity proposition?
A.
On the obscenity? I'm in favor of it. I remember once
a few years ago in one, and there were defects in it, and so forth
that caused everyone concern, and so the people went ahead and voted
no. And this time I -- and all that happened is porrography and
obscenity has grown worse. I'm a great believer in free speech,
I have fought about sensorship when I was in the motion picture
industry, but I think it is time that thepeople out loud tell their
elected representatives they want something done about it.
Q.
Governor, on the Mono decision. Evidently you've
decided not to call the legislature back in special session on
that. Can you say why you haven't and what you will propose to
clarify that situation?
A.
Well, we have met with the people involved. We have
met with the unions on this. Thereis no question but that this is
hurting and hurting our economy very much, and hurting individuals
who are being laid off. We have also talked to legislative leaders
and their opinion was that there would be no point in calling back
a special session. But right now I understand that they are
exploring and working on solutions for when they come back on it to
resolve this. I want you to recall this Court decision came as pretty
much of a surprise to everyone, including the legislators who voted
for the bill, because they claim it was not their legislative intent
and I know I would not have signed the bill had I not been in
possession of an opinion from the then Attorney General prior to
the '70 election, and the legislative council that this applied
only to public works projects
O.
Where did Lieutenant Governor Reinecke get his $500 million
-8-
dollar figure; in talking to some bankers afterward they indicated
they couldn't place a figure on the impact of the Mono decision.
Do you know where that figure came from?
MR. MEESE: Yes, this was from a composite group of
construction industry, labor unions affected and lending institutions,
representatives themselves.
Q.
Governor, are you critical of the Supreme Court again
with this decision?
A.
Yup.
Q.
Just a minute, Governor. Well, what about the fact that
you have appointed a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and he's
been involved in a number of these decisions you have disapproved
of, including the death penalty decision. Don't you have to share
some of the responsibility for his appointment?
A.
Yup.
B.
Governor --
A.
I don't ask --
O.
Are you saying you are wrong to have appointed him?
A.
No, I'm saying I disagree with the part hels played in some
of those decisions.
Q.
Do you regret appointing him?
A.
What?
O.
Do you regret appointing him?
A.
I wish he made some different decisions.
(Laughter)
Q.
Governor, what do you see as a solution to the Mono
decision, exempting track, exempting just rooms on houses or what?
A.
No, I -- there is a local planning -- there are local
planning commissions, there are county planning commissions, and the
fact that in the past there have been members of the commissions
and elected local officials who have allowed themselves to succumb
to pressure and to give variances and change rules that were
designed to protect the surrounding real estate and protect the
surrounding property owners. That is -- I don't think is justifica-
tion for the kind of hysteria that we are seeing now in this decision.
The answer is more accoutability, for all officials to be held more
accountable by the people.
Q.
Governor, this week and last, a number of us in this room
-9-
have spent a great deal of time looking at campaign contribution
figures. We see contributions from the prosperous men of both parties
If I'm wrong, forgive me, but I -- none of us hafe seen Governor
Reagan's
name
as
a
donor. What's your personal policy on donations?
Either at the state level or the national campaign.
Sargent
A.
Well, I'm a little bit like the Kennedy's giving Sergeant
Shriver in lieu of cash. I've bren all over the country campaigning
on my own. I think your personal contributions -- I have never been
a big contributor, never been able bo. Certainly not since I left
my previous occupation.
O.
Have you contributed this year?
A.
Huh?
O.
Have you contribuged any cash?
A.
Yes, in a round -- but it's been cash in small amounts.
o.
Governor, I'd like to clarify your answer on your roving
Y
ambassadorship.
ou indicated that you might be intrigued if you
were asked. Is that a proper interpretation and is there any
chance that you might resign the governorship to do such a thing?
A.
No, oh, no. No, I'm not resigning the governorship.
All I meant to imply is I don't know what a roving ambassadorship
means A whether that's a permanent assignment. Whether you are on
call oranything. I was simply indicating that I've been honored
to be on the missions that I have been on and if at any time I can
be of help and the President wants to send me on another one, I'd
be very happy to go.
Q.
Governor, has the sweet corn arrived from Ohio yet.
A.
No, getting a little itchy about that, too.
("aughter)
O.
I was wondering, with regard to an article on mortgage
Karpe
home loan brokers, it came to my attention that Richard Carpy,
who is the Director of Real Estate -- Commissioner of Real Estate
is actually a broker himself and is charged with the responsibility
for regulating the brokerage industry. There was a full disclosure
made. My question is this, regardless of the disclosure, do you
feel that it is proper for, essentially, the fox to guard the
chickens?
A.
Well, the man in the Real Estate Commission has always
been a man in the real estate business.
And I would't know
any other way to handle that, because he -- he is regulating a
-10-
very highly technical profession there. And so far in our opinion --
Q.
There have been a number of accusations made, however.
One is that the regulation is something that needs to be desired.
Secondtly, there is false advertising on the firm in which Mr.
Carpy are and his father have an interest in.
A.
You are speaking about something I have never heard about
before.
I'd be very happy to look into it because I have great
confidence in him and I think he's donega good job.
VOICE: Thank you, Governor.
000
-11-
11/8
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD NOVEMBER 8, 1972
Transcribed by: Governor's Press Office (RAS)
(This rough transcript of the Governor's Press Conference in Los Angeles
is furnished to the members of the Capitol Press Corps for their conven-
ience only. Because some of the newsmen's questions were inaudible on
our tape recording, it is impossible in some cases to include the entire
question.)
-0-
Good morning, or good afternoon or something. Well, I have no
statement other than, of course, I'm obviously pleased with the outcome
of the presidential race, and have found some other sources of joy in
the various issues and candidates who are on the ballot, and some
disappointments, of course, nationwide and locally. But, then, you
don't win them all.
Q
Governor, are you disappointed at all at what the proposition
of the Assembly in the Legislature is now, even though President Nixon
did so well in California?
A
Well, I would have been pleased, of course, to have the next two
years with both houses of the Legislature more sympathetic with what
we are trying to do. On the other hand, while we've only had a
friendly legislature one year, the other five years have been with
both houses opposed to us, and we did achieve a leadership in the
Senate, which, slim as it is, now gives as one house, and this is
better than we had before we went in.
C
Last night, Governor, Ed Reinecke said that he's going to run
for governor, and Houston Flournoy said that he's intending to run for
governor. It seems like the gubernatorial sweepstakes are on. Are
you going to make an early endorsement, or how do you view all your
other office holders now wanting to run for governor.
A
Well, I think it's been pretty obvious for a long time that
there have been a number of people who have eyed that spot, and I can't
blame them for doing that; I think this is true on both sides. As a
matter of fact, I think that the
some of the legislators on the
democratic side, who have been running for governor all this last year,
have been responsible for the failure of the legislature to have a
better achievement record than it's had.
Q
What are you going to run for?
A
Huh? I have no decision on what I'm going to do beyond '74.
-1-
Q
Who are your favorites, Governor, in that
(inaudible)?
A
I've made no statement on that either.
Q
Governor, is there any possibility that President Nixon
(inaudible)
A
No, I can't conceive of anything, God willing, that would have me
leave before these two years are up.
Q
Governor, how do you account for the fact that President Nixon
made a sweeping victory and yet derived so few candidates on the
national scene.
A
Well, I've never been a great believer in coattails. I think
perhaps that this is the kind of political myth that has grown up
perhaps when the parties were more nearly aligned
it has the size
and registration
or out of a long time majority party run. And then,
when you have a candidate at the top of the ticket that the membership
of a party is wholeheartedly behind, of course it looks like coattails.
They're pleased with him, and they go down the line and they vote the
straight ticket. We're a minority party, and what we had this time
great
was a/disaffection on the part of the head of the ticket on their side.
But I don't think this made them necessarily say, I'm leaving my party.
In fact, I predicted, if you can call it a prediction, I discussed
many times from my own experience of having been a member of the other
party the possibility that people for the first time going over and
voting for the Republican candidate for the presidency might very well
be strengthened in their determination, however, to remain loyal to
their party on the rest of the ticket. And I think this explains a
great deal of what's happened.
Q
Governor, Nixon ran behind in California as compared to
(inaudible). Does this mean the Republicans are in trouble in
California?
A
Oh no. We're in trouble to the extent that we're out-registered
better than three to two. And we always said that our state had more
of a challenge than the rest did. First of all, this was where McGovern
scored his great victory, where he had spent $2½ million in the primary
and conducted
spent a million of that on registration
conducted
a
great registration drive, and let's face it, they licked us on
registration. They outdid us. Late in the campaign, we got under way
with a drive that turned out to be very successful for us, but too
late and too little; it couldn't catch up with the lead that our
opponents had piled up. No, nationwide, and in all of the polls, they
-2-
Q (cont.) continued to refer to California as one of several states
in which McGovern had a better chance than he had in those other states.
And I am tremendously pleased with the majority that we provided the
President.
Q
But what about the
(inaudible).
A
No, I think the Democratic Party has got some troubles with a
divided front here in the state, because a great many Democrats have
proven in the last two elections, for governor and now for the president,
that they are not going to go along with this way-beyond, liberal
element that seems to have gotten such a foot in the door of the
Democratic leadership. Now, the trouble is, as a minority party, we've
got to use the between years, not in the emotionalism of an election
year, to increase our registration, and I think to point out to a great
many people who still consider themselves Democrats that idealogically
they are much closer attuned to our philosophy than they are to the
leadership of the party in this state.
Q
Can you give us your reaction to the passage of Proposition 20?
A
Well, everybody wants the coast protected. I was opposed to the
method that was proposed in 20. We had our own program going forward.
I will now proceed to implement this. The people have spoken. There
as
was never any quarrel, I think, in this one/to protection of the
coastline. It was a means of doing it. I preferred legislation. Now
this calls for four more years of study of the coastline. Well I would
hope that when we appoint these commissions that they would begin their
study with a three-foot stack of research material that is the result
of the last four years of study which we only received some months ago,
and which I think is one of the most exhaustive studies of the coastline
that I think has ever been made.
Q
You have a lot of appointments to make
(inaudible). What are
can
you looking for; what/we expect
(inaudible)?
A
Well, common sense, for one thing, and of course a desire, as we
all have, to see that our coastline is protected.
0
President Nixon today announced that
(inaudible).
A
No, I've told you, I've got two years to go as governor, and that,
the Lord willing, I intend to fill out.
Q
What other possibilities
(inaudible).
A
You mean me naming who might be other possibilities? Oh, I have
no idea. I know that in any new administration you have people that
choose to leave that have been there through one administration
-3-
A (cont.)
some of hi
own cabinet members have
nted at this even
before the election
and you make certain changes, so what those will
be, I have no idea. He's certainly never discussed it with me.
O
Is there a further possibility of
(inaudible).
A
Well, I only know what I've read in the papers or heard you
fellows talking about. I know that name has been suggested. But I
have had no contact with anyone in Washington who has suggested any of
these names. I, just as I say, I know what I read in the papers.
0
Governor, in Proposition 21, which passed as a very controversial
measure, some people now say that they are now doubtful of its con-
stitutionality. What is your feeling about that, Governor
(inaudible) ?
A
Well, if there's legal question, I'm quite sure that there will
be people that will bring it to the court's attention, and the court
will make a decision. I, however, think that it was an opportunity
that once again for the people to express once again how they feel
about a means of solving a problem that all of us want solved. And,
in my own opinion, bussing is certainly the last resort. It has
engendered more ill feeling, when what we are seeking is a better
feeling.
or
Some of the same doubt hung over the initiative to restore the
death penalty. What's your feeling about that?
A
Well, the people of California have said to the State Supreme
Court that the death penalty they want in the Constitution of the State
of California. Our next problem now is how do you implement that with
regard to the United States Supreme Court decision which said not that
it was unconstitutional at the national level, but that the manner in
which it was done in many states was unconstitutional, that states must
be more specific in their statutes as to what crimes were subject to
it. And here, I think, of course, it's going to be a legislative
action interpreting the United States Supreme Court decision, and then
proceeding on that line, and I'm quite sure that among, not only this
state, but a great many other states, there will be frequent court
tests of specific instances to make sure just exactly where the United
States Supreme Court decision lies.
Q
Governor
(inaudible).
A
We haven't had an opportunity to even discuss that as yet.
-4-
Or
Are you optomistic about tax reform, now that
(inaudible).
.
A
Well, I told you before the election what I'm going to do. I
expect in the coming week to deliver a message to the legislature on
this subject of calling a special election, of putting an issue on the
ballot for the people to decide on the basis that I outlined a little
earlier. And we have been busy framing the actual legislation.
Q
Governor, on the tax issue, do you think with the increase of
the Democratic majority in the Assembly, that they're likely to put
some kind of a proposal on the ballot
(inaudible)?
A
I don't know. There's been some talk about that. I would hope
that instead of confronting the people with two initiatives that we
could have some of the same success that we've had with our tax reform
proposals of getting together and going before the people and saying
here is a proposal that will meet the problems of school finance, of
giving some homeowner tax relief, and the other tax relief that I
mentioned.
0
Governor, how much room is there to compromise
(inaudible)?
A
I certainly hadn't thought there was any, but I'm certainly willing
to see what anyone proposes. Actually, what our proposal is, is a
boiled down version of the compromise measure that we had before the
legislature which failed in the Senate.
0
Governor,
(inaudible)
the proponents of Proposition 20
feel that they can expect out of the Senate Rules Committee
are
preservation oriented
(inaudible). Is it fair and logical to
assume that you could effect a balance in your appointments so that
there would be, for example, a development 1
(inaudible).
A
Well, no that would be kind of going against my own belief
about the protection of the coast.
The
and that would just make for
a constant bickering and fighting there. Now I'm talking about what
we have always believed, and what the three feet of paper that the
research we already have on this has indicated that you have a number
of counties up and down the coast and a number of communities
they
have their planning commissions. You have 412 miles--40 percent of the
coastline--already in government ownership
we're talking about 600
miles of the coast, and most of it north of San Francisco, where there's
virtually--where there is no swimming, where the water is too cold
it's not that kind of a coastline
very scenic. So we have a much
higher percentage than 40 percent ownership from Point Conception south.
-5-
A (cont.) Now, I think that, I have always insisted that one of the
things that I think we should look at the 412 miles we already own.
Government is not that pure. It could be that government is not
properly utilizing some of its holdings. And certainly government
should clean up its shoreline before it talks about anyone else. But
then I think there's got to be recognition of private property owner
rights. I don't think that the thing that is in 20, that the commission
has got to be guarding against is that the possibility of the nuisance
kind of action, the grudge action on the part of an individual who takes
someone who was living a half a mile from the ocean, couldn't even see
the ocean because there was a hill between him and the ocean, and yet
in this proposition, he wants to add a bedroom to his house and a
neighbor decides to protest and make him go through the process of the
commissions trying to get permission to build that bedroom. I think
we've got to have the kind of commission that recognizes that in
Proposition 20, there are these inherent possibilities, and to make
sure the commission establishes guidelines in a hurry for this protec-
tion. One thing we've always considered is that in the development of
the coastline, and where private developments are concerned, that there's
got to be access at reasonable intervals for people to get to the beach
because the actual water edge is all open to the public now. There can
of
be no fencing off/a section of the beach down to the water's edge. But
you can do it effectively if you take 10 or 15 miles of beach, and you
just don't have any access, well, people might be able to walk a little
ways from either end of this on the sand, for a day on the beach, but
they're certainly not going to walk 5 miles in the middle. And here
I think there's got to be some reasonable access to things of that
kind.
O
The Public Utilities had warned before the election
(inaudible).
Do you in effect then see the possibility of a moratorium on the build-
ing of power plants within five years or so.
A
Well, I think this is one of the first things that the newly
appointed commissions are going to have to turn their attention to,
because if they don't, California is going to know the eastern problem
of brownouts, and we're going to find ourselves with power rationing
and a few things of that kind. And I think, and I've said for several
years that the proper approach to this is to go in now and find areas
along the beach and be able to say within these zones, within these
areas, yes, power plant siting is possible. And stop this hit or miss
-6-
A (cont.) of letting power company try to find site, and then
having a big legal battle over whether they can. And this I think
would be one of the first things that the commission should apply
themselves to.
Q
Governor, this election is the same old story about the people
complaining about the complexities of the propositions, the length of
the propositions, the slogans; can anything be done to clarify it?
A
I don't know. I said we certainly ought to take a look it. We
ought to take a look also to make sure we're not going to substitute
initiatives for the legislative process. I think most of these were
born out of frustration of things that weren't done. But on the other
hand, my faith in the people and their wisdom comes along and is upheld.
The people proved they were pretty selective. Almost $2 million was
spent, for example, on Proppsition 15 which would have made a terrible
change in the administrative procedures of budgeting with regard to
the salaries of state employees. Only $20 thousand was raised to try
to present the other side to this case. And $20 thousand lick $2 million,
which, incidentally, ought to give all of us a little comfort about
this feeling that has been so widely voiced in this campaign that money
alone can determine the outcome of something. Because the people weren't
fooled by $2 million worth of propaganda.
O
Governor, in terms of outcome, you were for Proposition 18, and
Proposition 18 failed. How do you view that.
A
How do I view it? This was one case where you had the whole
communications media and the entire entertainment industry lined up
because they were fearful of censorship. And I had to kind of smile
at that because I'll challenge that no one in the entertainment or the
communications media has waged a longer fight against censorship than
I have myself in all those years when I was an officer in the Screen
Actors Guild. And I would say now that I think the people, frightened
by the prespect of a censorship and thought control and so forth, under
the kind of advertising they were getting, expressed that belief. I
still believe that the people of California are stick and tired of
pornography. And I would say now, that having won their victory, the
motion picture industry for one has a responsibility now to impose its
own self censorship of the kind that we had for years under the Motion
Picture Production Code to clean up the stuff that they are putting on
if
the screen. And/they don't do it, they're terribly irresponsible and
they deserve everything that happens to them.
-7-
Q
What about the dollars and cents that went to the proposition.
Do you think that had anything to do with it
the people who are
making pornographic movies or making X-rated movies?
A
Well, they obviously aren't making them for charitable purposes.
They expect to make a buck out of them. But the industry has a
responsibility; television has a responsibility. It's all well and
good to say, oh the individual can choose if he wants to see something
dirty. What about the man that takes his wife and children to the
movies to a movie that he has gone out of his way to determine that
that's a safe movie and wants his children to see, and suddenly on the
screen comes the trailer for next week's show. And he has no control
over that, and he can't grab them and hold his hand over their eyes.
But they're in a theater; he had taken every precaution, made sure
the picture was the proper one for the children to see; he had no
protection against them being forced to see something they had not
expected to see.
O
Proposition 22 (inaudible).
A
Well, I totally disapprove of what he's trying to do. Jack
Williams is a good governor. I think it's part and parcel of the way
Cesar Chavez has attempted his union negotiating, and his attempt to
get membership. He never really has gone out on the kind of drive for
union membership that most unions do, when they present the benefits
belonging to the union and ask you to join. He has tried coercion;
he has tried to force the employer to make a contract with him, in
which between them they say to the workers, whether you want to or
not, if you want to make a
living, you've got to join my union.
And it wasn't that widespread. I felt good about the number of people--
something over 45 percent that voted for Proposition 22. I would hope
now that the Legislature would take a look and minus some of the things
that were obviously flaws in that bill as there usually is in an
initiative process, still come back to the right of an individual
worker to vote by secret ballot on whether he will have a bargaining
agent and who that bargaining agent will be. For 25 years I served a
union that had that rule---secret ballot for our members on all policy
matters. I think that more working men and women of the unions today
should recognize that they are mobilized to be against this very thing-
the right to vote--and they are mobilized nine times out of ten by
their own hired hands
those people who make a career out of being
union officials, because they prefer having more control than that.
-8-
A
(cont.)
And
there
S a control when a union
mber has to stand up
and be counted when he votes, instead of going in as he does in the
regular elections and voting secretly. And again, for six years I've
been trying to get the right of secret ballot for union members in
their own unions on policy matters. And you never seem to be able to
led and
get it past the lobbying which is/done by certain labor officials.
O
Governor,
Bob Finch
(inaudible).
A
Well, no, you'd have to ask him. He's made several statements
to the effect that he wants to return to California, and survey the
possibility of running for an office in '74, so ask him.
Q
You mentioned, Governor, that one of the reasons that Proposition
18 failed was that the entire
(inaudible). Are you suggesting
that all those
(inaudible)
were duped by propaganda?
A
No, but I think there was a loyalty to the industry. I think
that John Wayne's statement the other day when he frankly, courgeously
and honestly admitted that the original analysis of 18 that was given
to him and which enlisted his support and his effort by way of
commercials had not been accurate, and that there were many parts of
18 that he thought were worth while; he still had some reservations
about some things in there that he thought could be used in giving,
let's say, too much police power individuals, and these concerned him.
But he was pretty outspoken in his belief that we have gone too far,
including the motion picture industry in the field of pornography, and
he'd like to see something done about it.
O
Do you, yourself, have any reservations about
(inaudible)?
I know that
A
No,/the motion picture industry had a legal analysis which they
used quite widely among their people. And I had that legal analysis
submitted to other legal advisors, and they were in complete disagreement
with it. They did not find the great menaces to freedom in this
measure that the original analysis did, and on that basis I felt that
the people should speak out against it. And I'll say again, if the
media does not recognize that this vote was a vote of the people because
of their concern about individual freedom, but it was not a vote that
they want pornography, then the media is going to be in for a great
big headache one of these days, because I think the people are fed up
to here with some of the trash that's being fed them.
Thank you, Governor.
0
Are you going on vacation?
A
Am I going on vacation? Gee, I'm catching a plane right now to
-9-
A (cont.)
go back to Sacramento and just revel with the legislators.
--0-
Q
(inaudible)
A
reapportionment in the legislature, that the Democrats say
that anything less than a 60-40 Democratic majority, they consider that
a Republican district. That's a little bit like the Rams, you know,
saying that they' 11 play if he's brought them two touchdowns.
Q
(inaudible)
A
I wish you you'd ask that publicly; I would like to have talked
about it, because I don't think that the legislature, frankly, is the
body that should be reapportioning. It is building conflict of
interest. Any incumbent is going to try to preserve his incumbency.
And right now, with a brand new election, I would like to see
reapportionment handled on a basis in which voter registration is not
allowed as a factor in determining the outline of a district. There's
no reason why it should be. Community of interest, contiguity of an
area
this should be the basis, not how many people are registered
one way or the other where you come up with the ridiculously shaped
districts that we presently have.
As long as you've stopped me and we're on this subject having a
accond press conference, let me just throw one out that if
the
people would stop and consider this, if the legislature had the
statesmanship to do this
today we now have state senators
representing more people than a congressman represents in the United
States government in California. We have 43 congressional districts
based on our population. Just for a trial run, what would be wrong
with dividing this state into 43 congressional districts based on their
communities of interest, and then, have each one of those districts-
43 of them-- be a Senate district enlarge our Senate to 43 and have
each district he two Assembly districts, and enlarge our Assembly to
86. And the voter, instead of having to remember that he was in this
numbered Assembly district and that numbered Congressional district
and that numbered Senatorial district would be in one district which
would determine his congressman, his state senator and the two
assemblymen. Now, you can divide that district in two or you can just
leave it that the two run at large in the same district of the Assembly.
0
(inaudible)
A
Huh? I know; and as I've told you before, in six years I've
found out when you mention common sense in relation to government,
you run into trouble.
Thank you, Governor.
0
Governor, if I could raise a couple of questions here that I was
not able to get during your news conference one was your comments on
the
your concern about the role of the media on Proposition 18. I
gather you feel that the media itself could be jeopardized in the long
-10-
Q (cont.) run as a result of the vote on 18.
A
Well, yes. Let's just take one phase of it, the one I was talking
about
the motion picture industry. And, of course this could apply
to television or anything else. All of you were too young to remember
that back in the 20's, the motion picture industry was doing pretty
much the same thing that it's beginning to do now, and there was such
a wave of resentment across this country, that to head off government
censorship, the motion picture industry formed the Motion Picture
Production Code and hired Will Hayes who had cleaned up baseball, to
become the czar of the motion picture industry. And for many years,
that production code, that voluntary code, was subscribed to by all
the producers of pictures, and pictures enjoyed their greatest boxoffice
and their greatest support by the people they were known as a family
medium of entertainment. And what I was suggesting was that now that
this has been defeated, the industry had better take another look and
see if they should not reinstitute a production code of voluntary self
censorship based on good taste and sense, or they're going to find the
same resentment on the part of the people.
Q
One other question, Governor. Last night when President Nixon
appeared at the rally in Washington with Vice President Agnew, there
were a chance of twelve more years with the implication that Vice
President Agnew might make a fine candidate in 1976. Given the size
of this election, and the returns that you saw here in California, how
would you assess those prospects looking down the road?
A
Well, if you were in Chicago instead of at the Shoreham, they
were talking about Senator Percy who would give them the other eight
years after Nixon was through. I have a hunch there's going to be a lot
of speculation now, and there will be a number of names that will be
suggested. But certainly the Vice President was a part of that very
tremendous victory, and did a great job of campaigning as the President
said.
O
Governor, what are your aspirations? I know you've answered that
question, but it seems unlikely that you're going to retire in two years.
A
Well, when you say retire, as to sitting in a rocking chair or
something, no. But I don't know; I really don't know, and there are
some things that I think need doing very much. For example, I've touched
on it up here---the necessity, I think, for doing some economic educating
say by way of the pulpit and the podium on some of the issues that were
raised in this campaign. All this mythology that one party is devoted
to the people and the other party has somehow sneaked in dishonestly and
represents only a handful of special interests and so forth---none of
this is true. And the figures belie it. I find my mind running that
that wouldn't be retirement. It doesn't necessarily mean you hold an
office, but it may be some missionary work is needed.
Thank you, Governor.
# # #
-11-
12,
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD DECEMBER 12, 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.)
000
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, good morning. That's the sum
total of my opening statement. Yes.
O.
Governor, I'm Charles Wallen from the National Review
and I'd like to ask you two questions, and with your permis sion
the first question is so long I'd have to read it.
A.
Fine. National Review?
O.
Yes, National Review.
A.
Be kind to me, please, I'm a subscriber.
O.
I heard that you made a statement in Phoenix recently
that you would be on the Waldorf Salad circuit after 1974. And
next to the President you are even now themost prominent Republican
and certainly the most famous in the country. And I'm just wonder-
ing if it would not be more comforting to the Republic that you
should challenge Senator Cranston in 1974, and pave the way through
this forum for the Presidential primaries in 1976. This would be
a two-pronged approach to making a -0 the Republicans the majority
party. It is a national notoriety and almost a national disgrace
that California has the two worst Senators inthe nation, even worse
than those from Mississippi. So by becoming Senator in 1974 --
(Laughter)
O.
-- and lecturing as a Senator and lighting up the sky, you
could serve the nation another ten years -- if you ran for President
in 1976 you could serve the nation another ten years beyond this
office, and the Republicans, I assure you, are quite anxious about
your health, that you watch your health, which I understand is
excellent. That's the first question.
(Laughter)
O.
Any moreoquestions, gentlemen?
A.
I can answer that more briefly. I do watch my health
and always have. Let me simply say, as I have said so many times
to the rest of this press corps here, that I have made no plans
or decisions as yet with regard to what takes place after 1974. The --
and you made it a little more effete than I did, about the circuit
that I said I could get on. I call it the mashed potato circuit.
But in -- in Arisona at the Governor's conference in a couple of inter-
views I was simply again reiterating that I have made no decision
and this same matter of a possible Senate race come up and someone
said if not that how do you remain active, and I then would try to
point out alternatives that you didn't have to just sit on the front
porch because -- just because you didn't hold elective office. I
thought and still think that a job to do, kind of economic and
political education in this country, by way of every medium, to
reveal or expose the political mythology and economic mythology
that dominates a great deal of our thinking and so I answered the
question in that context. But again I have -- so far my only
decision is that what we are going to do in these next two years here
in California.
Q.
Governor, I'll --
A.
Wait, the had a second question there.
(Laughter)
c.
Can we wait till next week?
O.
One more. I understand that the dome building, while
it hasn't been condemned, it's been made unsafe for school children
to visit, and you know, the Capitol has been moved twice in
California history, and I'm just wondering if this wouldn't be an
ideal time tamove it again. You know, the Capitol is 400 miles
removed from about 75 per cent of the population, and wouldn't it be
a good thing to move it either to San Francisco or Los Angeles?
(Laughter)
A.
Well, I have to say there are a great many spots in
California that I suppose would be considered by the tourists as far
more attractive than Sacramento. I doubt now with the size of
State government and the size of the state that the moving of the whole
Capitol with all the other buildings and so forth would ever been
contemplated -- considered as moving it from this city. There is
the specific problem of this particular, and then it is just a part
of this building, replacing with another building or strengthening
this to meet the egrthquake standards. And this is a decision that
I think is -- has to be made very soon. But I doubt if the people
of California now would hold still for what would be entailed in a moving
of the -- of the government. And the only thing -- I'm not sure
that you could put the Capitol in either San Francisco or Los
Angeles without reviving the old two Californias concept, because
we have a sort of a Mason-Dixon line here. I still say as a
southern alifornian that it was instituted by northern California.
The south doesn't feel thatway at all. But I don't know how you'd
chose which one of those cities. Maybe we could put it half way
between and eliminate the Mason-Dixon.
Q.
Governor, on that same subject, Senator Collier says he's
trying to get a bill through next year which will combine in one
bill 50 million for new Capitol Towers, and 1 million for
Governor's mansion, and 18 million to rebuild the old Capitol,
would you go for that approach?
A.
Well, I have to say that -- first of all, I think this is one
of the handsomest most historic state capitols in the nation,
and if you have to spend 18 million dollars just to preserve this
as a historic monument and another 50 to build another building,
why don't you spend the 18 million and stay in the building here?
Because that's what it would take to make this building useable and as
te as anything new that they were going to build. And frankly,
I didn't intend to say this at this time, but that would be my
choice. I think this capitol building should be preserved and not
as a monument but should be preserved as a working building to
perform the functions of government. And I -- I don't see those
fellows upstairs needing 30 or 40 stories of new building.
O.
Would you veto that part ofthe bill if it was sent to
you then?
A.
Now, you know I never talk about a veto till I see the
bill.
Q.
Governor --
O.
Governor, mine went back to his first question and I'll
try to keep my question shorter. You told us several times, I
believe, that you did not plan to seek third term, that was one
thing you were not going to do.
A.
That's right, yes.
O.
However, lately I've -- various pundits have been listing
that as one of your alternatives and you seem to have been - you
seem to have been qu ed to flowing back a littl
Is it still your
intention definitely not to seek a third term?
A.
That's right, I've made that very plain. I believe --
and I still believe that the state should have a limitation similar
to the federal government in that regard. I didn't comment with
regard to the question or the statements about our Senatorial
representation. But if some other states would like to offer their
senators to us on a contract basis, I'd be happy to discuss it with
them.
O.
Governor, in regard to the Capitol, I think the state
architect's report was it would take 18 million dollars to preserve
it merely as a museum type situation and over 40 million to restore
it so that it could continue to be used in themanner of speaking
it is now.
A.
I understand, now I could be wrong in this, so don't
hold me to it -- I understand that there's been some confusion about
those figures. But that the making useful and safe of this building
is far less costly than the new building. As a matter of fact, it
is my understanding that the chief architest said. that those
figures did not accurately represent the findings.
Q.
Governor, Allen Post says that reducing income tax pext
year will not be good fiscal policy for California. How strongly
will you push for reduction of income tax?
A.
Well, I am committed to that and I'm committed to the
theory that you don't take any more money from the people thatn
you need. Now, I have a warm and friendly feeling toward Allen
Post, but Allen Post a year ago said we needed 750 million dollars
in new taxes now, and now thewhole question that we are arguing about
is what to do with the surplus, that we had, instead of the 750
million dollars deficit. So I still hold with mine. I do not --
we are having meetings this week, cabinet meetings to take up for
the first time and determine exactly what thesituation is with
regard to surpluses, both one-time and on-going. But I am committed
to the idea of -- of an income tax cut.
O.
Speaker Moretti's initial reaction to that proposal was,
in his words, "It makes no sense at all." If you have to proceed
as you did on SB 90 to negotiate with the legislature, he feels
what chance do you have of getting the income tax --
A.
It will be presented to the legislature and then I would
-4-
hope that the legislacure would see the validity of it. The simple
fact remains that California ranks very high, I believe about second
or third, possibly, with regard to the total per capita taxation
for state and local government. And the national average today,
I just happen to think that government can reduce itself, every
government or all governments, in size, and cost and power because
wehave had a taxk force working on this whole subject of taxation,
as you know, in connection with our other plans with regard to local
government and what changes can be made. And the plain truth is
that nationwidethe average tax burden is taking over 43 cents out
of every dollar earned in the United States. And that would mean
that with California ranking as high asit does, it must be more than
43 cents that our people are paying for the costs of government,
federal, state and local.
Now, this puts a responsibility on the back of every level
of government to find ways to reduce its share of that 43 cents
that it is taking from the worker, and we are going to try to do it
and I think that when the Speaker and I have an opportunity to talk
about this, when we know the exact figures and what the possibilities
are, I think that he -- he certainly can be talked to and I -- and I
think that he would be willing to listen. I realize that philosophic-
ally he perhaps has a feeling, leaning towards utilizing the income
tax more, but as I have pointed out on a nymber of occasions, the
State -- the California state income tax is more steeply progressive
proportionately than the federal income tax. Now, it's supposed
to be progressive to offset regressive taxes, but it has gone beyond
that because the plain truth of the matter is that only 43 per cent
of our taxpayers earn $10,000 or more, and that 43 per cent are
paying 91.6 per cent of the total income tax burden in California.
And if there is a way that -- as you can see, that takes the hole
middle income range of the people that are already the greatest victims
of property tax and every other tax. They are bearing the greatest
share of thecostof government, and if there is any way to help out
even a little bit in that, I think we ought to do it.
o
Governor, how much of a continuing surplus do you see that
can be used for a -- continuing income tax?
A.
That's the thing that I can't answer, that's going to be
the subject of the meetings that we are holding for the rest of the
week.
There are a number of things that have happened, for example
-5-
the -- there are som federal acts that may have ffected what we
had earlier roughly guessed at as a surplus, affected it adversely.
One of them, HR 1, and ke -- all of these thingshave to be factored
in so we know now -- and the final passage of SB 90 was changed in some
of the figure amounts that were in it originally - all of these
things we have to sit down and find out exactly where we stand.
Q.
When would the bill to do this be introduced, early in
the year?
A.
Well, it would be in the next session, yes.
O.
Early in the session?
A.
As early as I could do it.
O.
Governor, which way are your inclinations on Senator
Short's bill to raise legislative salaries? Are you for that?
A.
Well, as you know, I have followed a pplicy of trying to
keep the separation of powers intact, and I have not injected myself
into these legislative matters. And --
O.
Are you --
A.
I think I will be consistent with that.
Q.
Are you going to sign the bill?
A.
We -- again, you know what I better do, I better take
the "fifth to this extent. If I once open up the subject at all
there are a number of pieces of legislation that are now before me
the desk and as you know I have taken a position that until
we have our regular process of cabinet and staff consultation on
all of these, I don't comment on whether I will sign or not sign.
So rather than take one at a time, let me just give a blanket answer
and say that beginning this right now, and in this coming week,
we have scheduled meetings on these pieces of legislation and so
I'd rather not answer on any of them until I -- we have had those
meetings.
Q.
Governor, on the same subject. That bill contains an
element which provides for your office personnel and other assistants
$20,000 per year increased to 30,000. Now, what staff had you
comtemplated that to affect?
A.
No, that was in a late amendment. I didn't even know
it was in there until just recently I've learned this -- that it
was amended in as a late amendment. That was a piece of legislation
that didn't have anything to do with actually raising salaries.
What we have been trying to do, and we had wanted legislation earlier
in the year to do away with the custom which we follows as every
-6-
Governor has done in every administration that 1 can remember in
California of borrowing Governor's staff from other departments.
And we are trying to get a more honest budget by creating a structure
whereby the Governor's staff will actually reflect and be on the
Governor's budget all of his staff instead of having staff members
that are borrowed from other departments and are on the budgets
of other departments. And that has been put into this, it does
not call for a raise, it is simply -- it is a -- was a technical
bill that would then allow in the future in doi ng this that the
Governor's staff would have salary ranges that were up to the level
of department head salaries.
Wait till I get back there and then I'll come down --
O.
Governor, what bills do you plan to be signing today?
ED MEESE: None.
A.
None, I signed a big stack yesterday and none today.
They tell me, I'm happy to say, there are a great many bills,
non-controversial, as you know, that -- the technical kind of bills
that I have often said that if they got lost on the way to the printer
it wouldn't change the quality of life style in California any,
these would be signed. But the bills you are interested in, there
won't beany taken or signed today, are those where there is an issue
and they are going to have to be round-tabled. Now here and then
over here.
Q.
The bills you have before you do include appropriation
bills of up to 300 million dollars, and you -- can you say generally
what your policy will be toward those sincethey would ostensibly use
up most of that surplus that's left.
A.
Well, let me answer that with my philosophy instead. The
very fact that now after six years we have finally removed the state
from the threat of insolvency that hung over us for so long, and
that we inherited six years ago, the fact that that's listed has
not changed my belief i n cut, squeeze and trim one bit. I believe
in Justice Oliver Wendell Homes who said that you keep government
poor and remain free. So while I'm not commenting on any specific
bills, I can tell you that nothing has changed with regard to my
philosophy in this state, that this state should not suddenly think
that it is out of the deficit position that it can now afford to
expand the size of government at all.
-7-
Q.
Still on taxes. Governor, when you say you are committed
to an income tax reduction, that doesn't mean you are committed to
a rebate, it seems to me the last time we had a rebate we had to
turn right around the next year or two and vote an enormous tax
increase.
A.
No, I don't know of any enormous tax increase that we have
had following a rebate. We have had two rebates, one of them we had
about a hundred million dollars and we had a ten per cent rebate
with a ceiling on it that was imposed by the legislature. That was
a compromise to get that. The second one was with the passage of --
of withholding, the one-time windfall, if you will remember, was
divided between some one-time capitol state projects and a 20 per cent
rebate last year on the tax. Now, this would be a consideration
in one of the alternatives with regard to a one-time surplus in
addition to an on-going surplus as a way of returning that to the
people. And I -- again, I don't know the figures or what we are
talking about.
O.
Governor, do you think it is feasible to impose gasoline
rationing in southern California in order to reduce smog, as being
considered by a federal agency?
Well, I understand this federal agency is out here to
hold hearings with -- well, you might say all of California, local
chelons of government, people engaged in this fight just -- the
ordinary citizen, the private citizen, to get all the input they
can and I understood thatit was from the standpoint of finding out
how far our people are willing to go, whatprice are people willing
to pay in an effort to help in the pollution fight. We will be
very interested in seeing all the information that they bring up.
Our own task forces, of course, are going forward on this. It is
a:- domtinuing fight and I think that we are -- it's been a very
intelligent fight so far, and one that holds out promise.
I
would -- I couldn't comment on that as an advisable thing, I just
want to see what it is that they come up with and -- and we will
certainly give consideration to everything that is learned if it
adds to the knowledge that we ourselves are gathering through our
task force.
Q.
Just one follow-up question, for several months your
office has gotten reports from your task force on period automobile
inspection. You haven't taken a position yet on it, whether there
-8-
should be periodic automobile inspection or not.
A.
This again is a matter that has to come beforethe cabinet
now. There will be a cabinet presentation and it isn't -- it is
scheduled butwe haven't had it yet.
Q.
Governor, there's one bill that you might comment on
that's the marijuana bill that reduces penalties. What is your
inclination towards that right now?
A.
Well, again I won't comment, George, on a specific bill.
I'll just say that -- let me call attention to this fact. That
California has been pretty enlightened. A lot of the talk about
the marijuana problem is based on a national situation. And a great
many people like Mr. Buckley the other night was surprised to learn
that in California we give the judges the -- the discretion. They
have the flexibility f deciding whether the case will be treated
as a misdemeanor or a felony. And we also have in addition to that,
wehave the right of family to turn in a member of the family who is
addicted in any way without any fear of an arrest record and the
person can be then taken - rehabilitation and treatment and so forth
in our various programs, but there is no fear of ever having an
arrest record hanging over them. And this -- as I say, puts I
think California in the enlightened forefront. But this will be
one of the bills that will be under consider ation this week.
Q.
Governor, what kind of man are you looking for
appointments to the Coastal Commissions and the regional and state
coastal commissions that were formed under Proposition 20?
A.
Well, we -- this is -- wehave met and had some discussions
with legislative leadership on this. We have a number of -- of
nominees for this post. Wehave not gotten down with all the other
things going on yet to the final selection of anyone. But
I'll stick with what I earlier said, that one of the first requisites
isgoing to be common sense. This administration is pledged and
has been pledged to coastal protection. I happened to oppose
Proposition 20 because it was unnecessary. We have the -- all the
studies that are needed with regard to the coastline. They have
been going on since 1967, and as I have described it, it is a stack
of paper three feet high, and we ourselves were prepared to go before
the legislature with a plan for a coastal plan, and I think that 20,
sai
said before, has a great many unrealistic things in it and
therefore was opposed to it, but we will try to find someone that
-9-
believes both in the milosophy of common sense and at the same
time recognizes the need to continue the preservation of the beauty
of thecoast.
O.
Would you favor what might be called a conservative
interpretation of Propesition 20 as opposed to a liberal one?
A.
Well, I don't know, once a bill of this kind is passed, I
dontt know how do you conservatively treat with such things as
whether a fellow can add a bedroom to his house when he's a half
a mile from the ocean and behind a hill and not even in sight of the
ocean, and yet this is included in Proposition 20. And I know
that some cases are being brought in court about some points of that
kind.
Q.
When do you expect to make your appointments?
A.
I don't know. What is the effective date?
MR. MEESE: We have to make them by the 31st of
December.
A.
Well, by the 31st of December. So it will be made before
then.
Q.
Governor, back to the sales tax. Governor, what is the--
what's the purpose of your California State Broadcast Service that
your office has just formed?
A,
Y ou want to answer that, Ed?
ED GRAY: Well, Bob McCafferty has --
O.
Thi is off camera, do you know about it, Governor?
ED GRAY: This is the broadcast service that is
providing actualities, recorded statements by various members of the
executive branch.
THE GOVERNOR: Oh, yes. To --
ED GRAY: To madio stations.
THE GOVERNOR: I hadn't given it any formal name or
anything.
A.
Oh, it is just an effort to again let the people know
that factual statements on state programs, whatever they may be,
are recorded and made available for radio broadcast.
O.
How is it being funded, where does the budgeting come for
that program?
A.
There isn't much budgeting to that.
ED GRAY: Regular part of the State Public Funds.
A.
Public funds that almost every department has.
-10-
Q.
You have
idea how much it will CC
or
what
its
projected sost will be.
MR. GRAY: No, --
A.
It's got to be very minor, we don't have to pay the cast
anything
extra.
People that do it, all it takes is a piece of
tape and we got our own tape recorder.
O.
Is there any stipulation that stations that use these
broadcast are to label it ashaving emanated from your office?
MR. GRAY: No more than any press release that anybody
gets would be labeled as such.
Q.
And will the statements also be press releases?
MR. GRAY: Probably, they are designed to compliment the
press releases of the various departments and agencies.
A.
So far the broadcast media has only gotten the press
release and then they themselves, as you write it, they -- they
themselves have to put it into words. This way they will get the
same direct statements that you get. Here and then I go back over
there.
Q.
Governor, I think you were quoted in U.P.I interview out
at Phoenix that in spite of your agreement to go along with the
Speaker on SB 90 you had some reservation whether the schools actually
needed that much money. State Controller Flournoy the other day
said in Los Angeles that they may need another tax increase next
year in order to properly fund schools to meet what seems to be an
upcoming guiddine from the Supreme Court in Serrano. Would you
comment on Flournoy's statement?
A.
I think we are talking about two different things.
Flournoy is talking about a possible decision with regard to where
the money for schools would come from. What I was talking about
in the general discussion over in Phoenix was the matter of the
compromises that made SB 90 come about. And I was pointing out that
nobody got everything they wanted in it, or it wouldn't be a
compromise. But I was pointing out that I -- for example, I have
to say right now with this situation of the schools, the way they
are, there is probably no question that they need the money that has
beeh made available and the increase that's been made available, but
I still insist that if and when local school districts, not all
of them, some are run verywell, -- but if and when the local school
districts can actually review their own administrative policies I
am convinced in my mind that they do not require all the money
-11-
they are presently tting. And to blame the ack of quality
in education in many of our school districts on the lack of funds
is absolutely ridiculous, because some ofthe districts that are
spending the most money are having the lowest quality in the --in
the finished product. And the fact that in two of our great
metropolitan areas one can be spending almost twice as much per
student as the other metropolitan area is and not getting any better
education for it indicates that there is a great variance in the
administrative ability of the school districts.
Now, what I would like to see is the continuing to
pursue and we have a task force on education with this. I don't
want the state to be able to impose on the school districts, I
want more autonomy at the local level, but perhaps the state can be
helpful in showing school districts where they can find these
efficiencies and these savings as we find that they have been insti-
tuted in some school districts. Then it would be my thought that
the local school district's inducement to institute these and reduce
the cost of schools would not be to save the state money. I am
committed to the idea that the state continue to give the money that
it has given but this could then further reduce the homeowwer's
tax, the school property tax, as they lowered the cost of education.
nd it is - it is just silly to say that there is any institution,
whether it is a bus iness concern or any departmentof government, that
cannot constantly find areas for more saving and more fat that can
be trimmed.
O.
Governor, just a follow-up question, if I might, please.
If, realizing that the Supreme Court actually has not come out
with an edict, it's been remanded back to a lower court, but assuming
that Serrano is the way things are heading and that there has to be
an equalization among school districts and further if your income
tax reduction, which you are now speaking of, taps part of the
surplus, would it not seem reasonable that to meet the Serrano
decision that you'd have to raise taxes to do that?
A.
Well, even if that should be true, there is one thing
that I also know, if you leave the surplus in government with the
idea that some day it might be needed to implement the Serrano
decision, you'll still have to raise taxes if they handed down such a
decision, because it is absolutely counter to government --
government's nature to let that surplus sit unused. By the time
-12-
you get to the Serra.o decision all of the surpius would have been
committed to other on-going programs, various pets of special
interest groups and individual legislators and everybody will rub
each other's back and the surplus will disappear. I would rather
take the chance of giving the surplus back to the people while you
can and then if something happens that forces a new program or a new
increase on government, then take your chance on having to pass it,
but at least in the meantime you will have kept government from
growing in other departments up to a bigger size than it already is.
And that's -- that's my whole thinking on this matter. I still
say that the Serrano idda has one great built-in fallacy, that I
cannot beliefe this government or that the courts all the way to the
top court would ever let stand, that if you pursue it the way it has
beenvoiced so far you are putting a ceiling as well as a floor
under what local echelons of government cando. Now I will agree
with the philosophy of a floor which guarantees a basic good education
and below which no child. should be educated. But for the life of
me I cannot see what purpose would be served in saying if some
district wanted to tax itself extra and provide some luxury frills
and ideas in education that they happened to belie ve in, and were
willing to do this, why the law at some higher level should say to
them that they could not do that.
O.
Governor, it is not a question, is it, of willingness,
it is a question of capability, isn't it? Baldwin park can't,
Beverly Hills can't, so that inequity exists as long as the property--
such valuations' in one district from --
A.
We took a large step toward equalizing this with SB 90.
We have actually increased the proportion of state money that is
going to the schools, and again as I say, I think before we start
talking about where are they going to find more money over and above
this, with incidentally a declining enrollment, not an increasing
enrollment, then I think the question is to find out, as I said
before, why are some school districts spending twice as much as others
and not getting anything for it in the line of quality education.
Nothing. There is no ratio in this stat e or any other state between
the money spent and the quality of education, or the graduates
of the educational system.
O.
Thank you, Governor.
-13-
A.
Say, Geor
if you don't mind, I had old him I'd --
0.
Earlier you said when you spoke to the Speaker about the
income tax proposed cut, does this mean that is your intention, to
discuss it, or negotiate it with Speaker Moretti? or what? Are
you just going to introduce it and let him come to you?
A.
I don't think we have just introduced anything without
talking not only to the Speaker and the President Pro Tem but to the
to our own legislative leadership about what it is we are going to
propose and we will follow that same pattern. I don't know whether
you are going to be as tough as Earl, but there's a couple of
frantic people here that are waving their hands. Can I take those
two? No more. All right, you and then you.
Q.
Governor Reagan, yesterday you made a speech to the Farm
Bureau concerning world trade and our deficit and balance of
payments, and you said you hoped that other countries would reduce
their tariff on our farm goods. Are you then going to ask the
President to reduce the import tariff and quotas on oil and steel,
automobiles and manufactured goods, are you asking for free trade?
A.
Well, I think -- this has been a philosophy -- I think the
President's and mine, for a long time. We realize that we are a
Long way away with the variances and discrepancies between standards of
living in the world from actually being able to have free trade, but
all of the president's negotiations and the efforts that Mr. Connally
worked toward were aimed at a more free trade than we presentlyhave
and I support him in that. I don't think it is a case of me having
to ask the President, I think he's already embarked on that course and
he has my support.
Q.
But he just added ten per cent to the tariff of everything
coming into the United States, how does that --
A.
Well, sometimes, you know, you have to kind of -- it is
like a mule thatyou got to hit him over the head with a club in order
to get his attention and the discrimination, the quotas against so
many American products, you've got to establish a bargaining position
before you can get the fellow on the other side to begin to see your
point. So I think that what he's doigg is not a change in
philosophy. I think it is just as it was with the devaluation of our
money. It is to point out to them that they are the ones that
have been practicing the greatest restrictions on us and to show
that it is a two-way street, that we will -- if they are going to play
that game, we will have to play that game. But if they are willing
to meet us on a free..g of the trade, that's the way we want to go.
Q.
Would you favor free trade with no tariffs?
A.
Well, I would favor it. But I thinkthat we have got to come
much closer in the comparative standards of living of some of the
competing countries before we can do that. And I -- and that's
a hopeful goal, I think all of us would like to see the day when
pay scales around the world were similar to what they are here and
living standards were the same. The last question.
Q.
Governor, on taxes. Both the Speaker and Senator Moscone
have indicated they wouldn't vote for a tax cut unless there was some
provision for closing loopholes. Would you favor anything along
that line?
A.
Well, you know, it is so easy to talk about loopholes
but I have asked many times, and I've asked in this campaign and I
can ask you, what are the loopholes? Thiswhole -- this is part of
the political mythology and economic mythology that I mentioned a
little while ago. It is awfully easy to talk about loopholes
but where are they? And what are theytalking about? Is it a
loophole, for example, for you to be able to deduct your property
tax/before you compute-your income tax? I don't think so, because
most people wouldn't be able to live in their own homes if they
couldn't have that break. Is it a loophole, for example, to
deduct part of your medical expenses? Now, the plain truth of
the matter is that mostof the people who have been making the most
noise about loopholes, if you go back and look at their writings,
their speeches and their own conferences and their testimony in
committee meetings, both here and in Washington, you will find that
the loopholes they are talking about are the legitimate deductions
taken by the working men and women of this country and without
which they wouldn't be able to afford their income tax.
Q.
Will you consider reducing the sales tax instead of
reducing the income tax?
A.
No. For one reason, because I doubt even that our most
optimistic survey of the amount of on-going surplus that could
practically be applied to the sales tax without making a fraction
of a cent cut in that tax, that would cost almost more to administer
and would not really be an effective savings. No, the idea of the
breakage point below which the customer pays the full tax, even
if only a fraction is owed, we have talked about that. We have
investigated that in the past. The other tax, the income tax,
-15-
when it is a limited amount of money that you have in a surplus,
it is one that lends itself best to where at least you can give an
"x" per cent cut to the individual. But remember this, that begin-
ning in January everyone of us is going to take another look at your
paycheck and you are going to see a great big bite out of that pay-
check by a little matter of Social Security that was increased
in Congress. Now, they increased the outgo so that it took place
before election, but they increased your increased Social Security
tax so it would take place after the election in January. But
when that is added to the other bites that are coming out of the
tax you are going to find that that has become a very healthy chunk
and I just think, as I said before, that if we some way can do
something that goes the other way and adds a few cents to that
paycheck, I think we will be doing something very worthwile for the
citizen. 43 per cent is far and away too much for government to
take from the average individuals. You go to work -- when you
start to work in January, you will work into the first week in
June before you start working for yourself. That's how long it
takes you to pay the cost of government.
GEORGE: Thank you, Governor.
o00
-16-