Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564128",
    "label": "Transcripts - 10/12/1972, 10/25/1972, 11/08/1972, 12/12/1972",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564128"
}

{
    "id": "118564128",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564128",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Transcripts - 10/12/1972, 10/25/1972, 11/08/1972, 12/12/1972",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564128",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Press Conference Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-001-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-001-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-001-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564128",
    "naId": 118564128,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-001-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "0e5b8eb0d83f255e",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual\ncollections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Press Conference Transcripts -\n10/12/1972, 10/25/1972, 11/08/1972, 12/12/1972\nBox: P04\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\ninventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at:\[email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\n10/12\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD OCTOBER 12, 1972\nReported\nby:\nGovernor's Press Office (RAS)\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's Press Conference in Los Angeles\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol Press Corps for their con--\nvenience only. Because some of the newsmen's questions were inaudible\non our tape, recording, it is impossible in some cases to include the\nentire question.)\n-0-\nO\nWorld Affairs Council (inaudible)\nA\nWell, I spoke about what I think is the need for us not to go\nback into a policy of isolationism. I mentioned specifically my belief\nthat that is one of the issues of the present political campaign that\none side is advocating whether they admit it or not--an isolationist\npolicy for America--and I think it would take us toward war and not\ntoward peace. I spoke then of my recent trip to Europe and the earlier\ntrip to Asia for the President in which I was asked to go as an\nemissary delivery certain messages for him in several countries in\nEurope, previous to that, in Asia. And that was the gist of it.\nO\nGovernor, what is your position on Proposition 15 on the state\nballot, the one that deals with state employees and the other\n(inaudible).\nA\nI'm opposed to both, first of all to Proposition 15, and I must\nsay, I have been amazed with talk in a campaign year that there always\nis of falsifying issues. I have been amazed at the kind of literature\nthat has been put out in behalf of Proposition 15, pretending that\nthis is something that will hold down government costs and hold salaries\ndown. That just is not the case at all and is not even the reason why\nit was put on the ballot. Basically, it is a proposition to take out\nof the hands of whoever is administering the state government, and\nalmost take out of the hands of the legislature, although it gives them\na kind of two-thirds veto power, the ability to budget and put into\nbudgeting the factor of employees salaries. So I'm opposed to that.\nAs to the Highway Patrol, they have put one in that would also\ntake away any flexibility with regard to the administration handling it.\nIt's harder for me to be against 16 only for the simple reason that I\nthink the Highway Patrol is a part of state government that every\nCalifornian should be very proud of. I think the men and their devo-\ntion to duty, and the record that the California Highway Patrol has is\nsuperior to anything I know, not only in our state, but in the country.\n-1-\nAnd I have sought over these past few years, when e've had economic\ndifficulties, to try and rectify what I thought was some of the\ninequities with regard to the Highway Patrol. I still want to do that\nand I believe in the year ahead we are going to be able to do that.\nSo I'm not opposed to 16 on any basis of believing that the Highway\nPatrol is not deserving of all that we can do for them. But it would\nbe bad administration; it would take away from those who are elected to\nadminister the state government a great part of their administrative\nduties and abilities.\nO\nWhat would you like to see replace\n(inaudible)\nCHP\n(inaudible)\non the\n(inaudible)\ncommittee's proposition, with\nthe advent of the information that he has indicated that while they\nstill write citations for the things they consider deserving of\ncitation, that the emphasis be more on being in view of the motorist\nwith the idea of deterring him from violating the law and not being\nso ticket happy, so to speak, as they have been for a helluva long\ntime. Does this meet with your approval? Do you feel that this is a\nhealthy frame\nor that it would be helpful\n(inaudible)\n?\nA\nWell, Pudinski is the first man who is an actual Highway Patrol\ntype, I mean a traffic officer whose entire knowledge and experience\nis not in law enforcement so much as in the problems of traffic super-\nvision, and I have every confidence in him. If this is what will do\nthe job, I back him completely.\n(11)\nor\nGovernor, the proposition on the ballot dealing with the death\nsince\npenalty, if it is passed ( and/the Supreme Court has declared capital\npunishment unconstitutional ) do you think voting is going to be a\nwasted effort for it, or is this going to be declared\n(inaudible)\nlike it is unconstitutional?\nA\nWell, I don't think so because our interpretation of the United\nStates Supreme Court decision was that the way that it has been\nadministered by the state so far too vague. But this idea of\nit\nisn't specifically spelled out\nand the interpretation that our own\nlegal counsel has given us is what the United States Supreme Court was\nsaying, not the California court. We're trying to reverse the California\ncourt decision with our ballot proposition. But the United States court\nwas saying that the states, by legislation, by statute, should be more\nspecific, to spell out what were those crimes that they believed should\nspecifically have the death penalty. In other words, take some of the\ndecision away from the jury on this, that if the jury found a person\n-2-\nguilty of a specific crime, and that crime called for the death penalty,\nthat would be it. The jury would not then come back and separately\nestablish the sentence. I think that what would be needed, if we\npassed this ballot, then it will be up to the legislature to pass and\nadopt those specific crimes for which they are going to have the death\npenalty. And I'm quite sure there would be test cases of some of\nthose the first time that you have someone convicted, or sentenced,\nthat they probably, on appeal, run it though the Supreme Court. Perhaps\nsome states, even our own, might find that our statutes didn't meet\nwhat they had in mind and there would be some changes. But, that's\nour interpretation. And so therefore I don't think it's a wasted\neffort; I think we should vote for the death penalty, and I do believe\nthat it is still constitutional, in spite of the court decision.\n2\nGovernor, one of the State Supreme justices has said that he\nthought that the majority of the public had misinterpreted and misunder-\nstood their decision. Do you agree with that?\nA\nI don't know how you could misinterpret the state court's\ndecision. The state court said it was against the California State\nConstitution, that it was unconstitutional in ours. Very frankly, I'm\na little impatient with them, and the only think that I could find\nwere\nthey/hanging it on was the use of the word \"or\" and \"and\". In other\nwords, our phraseology in our Constitution differed from the United\nStates Constitution by saying \"cruel or unusual punishment\" instead of\n\"cruel and unusual punishment\", or vice versa, I can't remember which\none is which which seemed a pretty thin thing on which to hang their\ndecision.\nour\nQ\nGovernor, what caused specifically the\n(inaudible)\nof/death\npenalty; where do you see\n(inaudible)\"\nA\nWell, I certainly think that consideration should be given to\nhighjacking. But I think that the outright, premeditated, cold-blooded\nmurder, particularly of the criminal type, certainly should be one. I\nthink the consideration\nI\nthink that all of this in the legislative\nprocess, with hearings and so forth, should lead to decisions. But I\nthink that we've proved over a period of years, until court decisions\nchanged it, that the kidnapping0-the Lindburgh kidnapping law--had\nresulted in a great decrease in kidnappings. And this certainly should\nbe considered as one. I myself have favored that the murder of a\npoliceman while on duty should be a capital offense. And I've asked\nfor that from the legislature for two years now, and in the two years\n-3-\nthat they have buried his in committee and faile to act on it, there\nhave been more than score of police and correctional officers who have\nbeen brutally murdered. I think when a criminal kills a policeman in\nthe commission of a crime, you have to say that this is a man who\npremeditated, and who knew that if he was apprehended, he was going to\nkill a policeman.\nbeen\nbut\nO\nGovernor, I know it's/brought up before,/the question of security\nis pertinent in light of what has happened in Chino and Washington, D.C.\nCan you do anything now to insure tighter security measures in California\nprisons?\nA\nWell, yes, for one thing we're adding 400 correctional officers,\neven though the prison population is down. What has actually happened\nin our state, and I'm sure this is true in many other states, in our\nstate we have had a probation and parole policy which in recent years\nhas resulted in a great decline (we've closed six institutions--mainly\njuvenile institutions; we're going to close San Quentin), but, you once\nhad a society in prison where for every violent pathological type\ncriminal you had a number who were con men check artists, sometimes\nfirst time or one time offenders. Now these men have a sentence to\nserve; they want to get it over with as pleasantly as they can possibly\nmake a prison, if it is possible to make it pleasant, and they want to\nget out. They don't want someone making trouble. So there was a\nperiod, up until the last few years, when if a guard, for example, were\nassaulted, you would have a half dozen prisoners go to his rescue and\npull the other fellow off. They were part of the social structure of\nthe prison. Now you have those men on probation separated out--and\nyou have a great increase in the proportion of the percentage of the\ntruly violent. The difference as it was explained to me one day by a\ncorrectional officer is he said now, if a con jumps one of us, six\nother convicts jump us also. And so there's only one way that you can,\nyou have to recognize then that you now have have maximum security type\nprisoners and that's why we are increasing the guard. Now there's\ngoing to be more than one guard and system whereby when trouble breaks\nout, you can get help.\n0\nIt's also been said, though, that some of the inmates, if this\nis the right word to use, have too much freedom inside the cell\nthat\nthey can get phone calls, access to writing letters when they feel like\nit, free visitation rights. Can't that be toughened up a bit?\n-4-\nA\nYes, just recently I complained to the bar association about a\ncourt decision that has now said that the custom of reading convicts'\nmail, in and out, can no longer go on between the\nthat you can't\nread it if it's between the prisoner and his lawyer, because this is\nviolating the client-lawyer relationship. And as I said to the bar\nassociation a few weeks ago, where do you draw the line between the\nclient-lawyer relationship, the privileged relationship, and client-\nlawyer sometimes conspiracy, to effect another crime or a breaking out\nof prison. And I think we've got to use some common sense and reason.\nO\nGovernor, were you taken by surprise to learn that the two\nofficers taking Baty to court in San Bernardino over an alleged\nmixup over dates were not armed?\nA\nNot until I read the rap sheet on the man himself. Now, it\nwas my understanding that in an institution of that kind, that the\ncorrectional officers who customarily are not armed, because to go\ninto the prison armed, of course you're inviting someone to take an\neffort to get that weapon, the fact that he was shackled and chained\nand that this has been customary. But, what does seem unusual, and\nI've asked our people to find out about it, was the nature of this\ncriminal. Usually when this is done, when correctional officers take\nhim at all, it is not that kind of prisoner. They normally then have\nsheriffs' deputies who are armed deliver the men\nwho are actually\nlaw enforcement officers. But when I saw the record on this man,\nhe's not only got a record of escapes, this is a man who is, who has\nbeen responsible for the death of others; this is a man who has a\nrecord of violence, and it did disturb me very much.\nQ\nGovernor, on the same question, have you ordered an investiga-\ntion by the\n(inaudible) commission?\nA\nWell, when you say investigation, this calls to mind a kind of\na formal hearing type of thing. If that should develop, if that's\nrequired, that will happen. But, what I say is, I turn to our legal\naffairs people and I say I want to know what the H--- happened and we\ngo from there.\nO\nGovernor, Senator Cranston has stated unequivocally that you'll\nbe the man he will be facing in '74 for his Senate seat, Can you give\nus a\ncomment on that?\nA\nWell, Senator Cranston, I wish he'd deal with some of the\nproblems confronting California now in 1972 instead of looking ahead\nto his own fate in 1974. I haven't made any decision yet about\n-5-\nSenator Cranston. No if that's keeping him awake nights, I couldn't\nbe happier.\n0\nGovernor, one more thing. In your status regarding the state\nfiscal stance of cutting the income tax and increasing or adding one\npercent sales tax, do you feel, sir, that by doing that you would in\nfact be feeding the incomes of the poor who spend 100 percent\nof their income as opposed to the wealthier elements of society who\nperhaps don't spend anywhere near that amount?\nA\nNo, there are several reasons that made us do this. First of\nall, all of our surveys over four years have shown that the tax, that\nthe people said they would like to have increased in order to reduce\nthe property tax, 80 percent of them have said that it should be the\nsales tax. Only around 25 percent have ever indicated that their\nchoice would be the income tax. So this is one factor. This is what\nthe people themselves want. The second thing is that the sales tax,\nnumber one, is paid, a good portion of it, a third or more, is paid\nby business as well as the individual. But the other part of it is\nin a state that has a great tourist trade, the sales tax gets us outside\nmoney, and other people come in here and help pay the taxes for\nCalifornians. And I don't find that all that unfair since California\nis one of those states that in all the federal programs contributes\nmore than it ever gets back. And the income tax, of course, falls\ntotally on California wage earners.\nQ\nThere was a recent story today that it seems quite probable\nthat Congress will approve federal revenue sharing and the money will\nbe distributed before the end of this month, possibly beginning in\nNovember. How will that affect the state's posture in regard to\ntaxation.\nA\nWell, we've already committed our share--the state's share--to\nthe plan I announced the other day for a tax cut and for the refinancing\nof the public school system. We have committed our total share of\nfederal revenue sharing to that program. We expect that that should\nproduce about $200 million new money for the low-wealth school\ndistricts.\nQ\nGovernor, you talked to Lieutenant Governor Reinecke, and you\nsaid that it's about time somebody did too much, or went too far, to\nstop and finish, because maybe it's impossible to go too far. Do you\nthink it's impossible to go too far\n(inaudible)?\n-6-\nA\nWell, I suppose if you envision going over to the totally\nmanaged press or something, that would be too far. But I think what\nthe Lieutenant Governor meant, and I'm in complete agreement with him\non this, is that in the past in an effort on the part of people to not\nvote against\ncross over some line into free speech, their/efforts to curb\npornography have been taken by the pornographers and even by some\nwho are entrusted with enforcing the law, to mean that the people\naren't concerned. And I think it is time for the people, by their\nvote, even if there are some shortcomings that then have to be\ncorrected by subsequent in whatever measures have been presented,\nand I don't think that there are as many as are being presented by\nthe opponents of this measure on the ballot, I think that is time\nthat the people serve notice that they are fed up with it, that they'd\nhad enough of it. They've had enough of it on the screen; they've\nhad enought of it in literature; they've had enough of it in the stuff\nthat is mailed to their children. I wish you could see the collection\nthat I have not kept, that I have received from parents who send to\nme from all over the United States, the stuff that their teenaged and\ntheir under-aged children receive and with a California dateline.\nAnd that's why they send it to me. And I don't keep it; I pass it on\nto the authorities that I think might be interested in the particular\narea where it has come from. But it is just filthy, hardcore\npornography, and I can understand any parent (I'm a parent myself),\nwhen your child can get on a sucker list, a mailing list and receive\nthis kind of stuff in the mail, I think it's time for the people to\nserve notice. And I hope they will serve notice.\n(18)\nO\nGovernor, if you serve notice, and this proposition is passed,\ndo you fear that there may be some opposition from the Supreme Court,\nsince the majority of issues dealing with pornography have eventually\nended up in the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would be\n(inaudible)\nA\nWell, there's a chance we have to take. But at least, I think\nthat it would still do some good. Even if the worst should happen to\nit, I think that the good it would do would again serve notice on\nthose people not only in law enforcement, but in the legislature,\npeople in government, that the citizens want something done about this.\nAnd if this isn't the right way to do it, you can't tell me that a\nsociety that can put people on the moon can't find a way to put these\nfellows out of business.\n-7-\n0\nGovernor, Mond the Los Angeles Times rar a headline that the\nState of California has 41 percent welfare fraud. Could you tell me\nwhere they got these figures from?\nA\nYes. This figure, and I regret that some people, and even the\nwelfare director of the county of Los Angeles here, seems to think that\nthis was 41 percent fraud in the entire program of welfare. Now this\nwas a check run on the proportion, that percentage, of the welfare\npeople who are receiving welfare but who also have outside incomes.\nAnd the fraud, whether deliberate or accidental, and that has yet to\nbe determined, is results from their understating their outside income\nfor purposes of getting a welfare grant, or they're overstating their\nwelfare need. And perhaps some is legitimate error, some obviously is\nfraud. But it was 41 percent of that segment of welfare, and these\nfigures were obtained from the checks that we can now run, computer\nchecks, on the information given by the welfare recipient compared to\nthe information given by his employer who pays him the outside income.\nAnd this countercheck, you will remember, they brought a lawsuit to\ntry to stop us from doing that, and the court ruled that it was legal\nand if we had any, the right of any government to check, we have two\ndepartments of government one of them in the income tax gets all of\nthe statements on a person's earnings, and the other department is the\nwelfare department, and they get the person's statement on what those\nearnings are. And there's no reason in the world why we can't check\nthem, and that's where we got the figures.\n2\nGovernor, what are the chances of your property tax reforms\npassing the legislature next year?\nA\nWell, they don't have to pass the legislature in November.\nAll the legislature has to do is vote that they can go on the ballot,\nand then I will call a special election. Now, it's possible, we\nthought, that some legislators who might vote against the tax program\nas such would vote to allow the people to make that decision, just as\nI've signed about 13 measures, sent down to the legislature to put\nthings on the ballot, and many of them I disagreed with. But I did\nnot disagree with the right of the people to make that decision. I\nhope the legislature will feel the same way about this one. If they\ndon't, then I'm going to head up a campaign to circulate the petitions\nand to put it on the ballot, and I will call a special election for that\npurpose by way of petition.\n-8-\nor\nDo you believe a lot of people will be voting for the Watson\nAmendment because there has not been reform in the past several years?\nA\nOh, I think that we hear any number of people when\nI\nget\nout\ncampaigning and in the local areas here where our legislators are\nrunning, I hear any number of people say that they know the Watson\nAmendment is a bad measure. But they're a little mad and they say\nthat it's the only game in town. So, now they've got another game.\nor\nGovernor, relative to the California Bar Association's posture\non the legalization of prostitution, do you feel that would be a good\nmove or bad one?\nA\nI think it would be a bad move.\nOr\nWhy is that?\nA\nWell, there is a moral law and there is a man made law. And\nwe've always recognized in our civilization both of these, the higher\nlaw as well as the governmental law, and there's no question about the\nmoral law with regard to this. And I just think today, in today's\nclimate of permissiveness where we have seen so many basic values\nchastised for government to take a position that seemingly endorses\nand puts approval on what is an immorality is the wrong way for\ngovernment to go.\nOf\nGovernor, not long ago, Sheriff Pitchess said that he would\nagree with legalizing prostitution if would control VD, and it would\nalso free a lot of officers who are on the vice squad to go after dope\npeddlers and so forth. What do you think of that comment?\nA\nWell, perhaps we're in disagreement on that. But I remember\nback in World War II when the Army, where there were large Army\nencampments, and in many areas there was local legalized prostitution,\nthe Army went in and closed it up. And I was of the frame of mind\nthe\nthen, I said wait a minute, you know, is the right way to go? And I\nhad it explained to me by the medical officers of the Army as to why.\nThey said that their only interest was in keeping healthy soldiers,\nthe control of VD. And they were able to prove by statistics that\nlegalized prostitution, even with the regular inspections and so forth,\nmedical inspections, had something like four or five times the\ncapacity of spreading venereal disease as did breaking it up and\nputting it out illicitly on the street. And they had the actual\nstatistics. And I found that you may disagree with the Army on a lot\nof things, but where their own interests are concerned, their statistics\nare usually pretty sound.\n-9-\nO\nGovernor, the county's own figures now cate, the county\nhealth department in Los Angeles now indicate that VD as it might be\nspread by prostitution is at the lowest percent\n(inaudible)\nthat is transferred by prostitution, that VD problems are from other\nareas.\nA\nOh, no question about it. This goes back to what I said\nearlier about the permissiveness, the humanist philosophy that has\nbeen encouraged over recent decades, the drift away from moral laws.\nYes.\nQ\nIf that's the case though, wouldn't that be the least reason\nof all to object to legalized prostitution?\nA\nNo, I was answering a question here about this and what it\nmight do with regard to venereal disease control, and I was putting\nmyself on the other side from my friend, Sheriff Pitchess on that.\nBut on this one, I just, let me just say this one thing about the\nother thing. This is a totally different problem that you're talking\nabout. This is a problem of young and underaged boys and girls that\nhave been taught and told and encouraged in the humanist philosophy\nby some of the pornography we earlier talked about, sometimes even in\nthe classroom, with the idea that if they want to do something, it's\nalright for them to do it. And there is no penalty. And when you\nturn that to the point that under our welfare laws, tens of thousands\nof underaged girls can get in trouble, and the government cooperates\nwith them in keeping their trouble secret from their parents and\nprovides them with a taxpayer's paid-for abortion, of course, you're\ngoing to have promiscuity. Everything that you used to be a restraint\nhas been taken off on this. And I would like to see us come back the\nother way. The best way to not get it is to not do it.\nO\nMy point was that if VD as created by prostitution is at such\na low point, as the county health department says it is, isn't that\na rather\n(inaudible)\nwhich to determine legalizing prostitution?\nA\nWell, no. I would think that it would be the other way around.\nIf the sheriff is saying that we would control VD by legalizing\nprostitution and prostitution isn't causing it, then it's his argu-\nment that is specious.\n-10-\n0\nGovernor, in all fairness to the sheriff, I interviewed him\nthis morning, he said he was misquoted by the Times.\nA\nI'm glad to hear that.\n0\nHe says his department's position has been and is that he is\nagainst prostitution, not only in terms of that, he said all of the\nmedical evidence proves it to the contrary. This is the Norfolk, Va.\nstudy.\nA\nI'm delighted to hear that because he and I have been friends\ntoo long to even be on opposite sides on this.\nO\nGovernor, we just talked to a George Moscone who said that\nthere's every indication that Senator McGovern is not trailing by as\nmuch as previously, but he's closing ground. Have you any indication\nthat President Nixon is losing ground?\nA\nNo. But I would think that the Senator is trying to make news\nout of something that's been a prediction of the Republicans for a\nlong time. Anybody that believes in the polls as they have been early\nin the campaign, are going to continue that way is pretty politically\nnaive. The great undecided vote, a great many of them are Democrats\nwho are not swept off their feet by Senator McGovern, but they still\nare Democrats. And having been one myself, I frequently have stated\nthat I know what they're feeling. I know that as you get closer to\nelection day, party loyalty is going to exert itself. And I think\nyou can quote MacGregor on that, I think John Mitchell has been heard\nto say it. Any number of people have said that as you come close to\nelection day, that's when the polls will begin to even up, because\nthe overwhelming majority of any party is not going to defect from\nthe party.\n0\nGovernor, after the retirement of Dr. Hayakawa, do you know\nabout any of his future plans for politics in the State of California?\nA\nNo, I don't. He did discuss with me when he considered running\nfor the Senate some time ago, he discussed that and told me of his\nintention to stay with education. So I don't know what his plans are.\nBut I must say on the basis of his record with the University, whatever\nhe chooses to do, I wish him well.\n0\nI've noticed that there's been a preponderance of suggestions\nthat the Republican Party is corrupt for one reason or another. Do\nyou think that is all political flack, or do you think there is any\nsubstance at all to these many, many charges that are brought up in\nthe election?\nA\nMaybe I shouldn't plug one channel here, but last night I\nhappened to be watching Billy Graham interviewed by Merve Griffin on\nthat show, and this particular question came up. And I thought that\n-11-\nBilly Graham gave about as good an explanation as simple an\nexplanation as possible. I think it's political and I think it's\ncampaign talk. But what he was pointing is that to suggest that any\npresident, and he certainly has known a number of them, and been a\nclose intimate of both parties and he speaks of them as close friends,\nthis goes back to Kennedy, Johnson, Truman, Richard Nixon but he\nsaid when you stop to think that a president has several thousand\ncommissions and boards and departments alone, that are supposed to\nreport directly to him, and to believe that this great bureaucracy\nis going to be any more moral than the general run of citizens, that\nthere's no way in the world that a president can know about this,\nbecause if you want to go back to all the things they are trying to\nbring up, well, then, what about under Kennedy, the 65 shiploads of\nwheat headed for Austria that disappeared, and to this day no one has\never known what has happened to the wheat and where it went, or who\nsold it, or who got the money, or the wheat. There was the salad oil\nscandal. And these things go on. I think that these are the things\nthat any elected official lives with every day of his life. You go\nto bed at night with the knowledge that you've done your best to see\nand to hope that those people that you've directly appointed meet the\nstandards that you want them to meet. But there can be someone, while\nis\nyour sleeping,/doing something he shouldn't do and it breaks over\nyour head, and of course, technically you're responsible because you're\nthe chief executive. But this has gone on. And the answer to it,\nas Billy Graham said last night on the show, the answer is to do what\nthe President has had to do---decentralize government and wind down\nthat gigantic bureaucracy to a place where it is manageable. Let me\ngive you one figure. The Secretary of the Interior has 70,000\nemployees. He can appoint 70. Now, there is no way in the world\nthat he and his 70 appointees can keep a hand on, and an eye on,\n70,000 people who have been there through several presidents and who\nthink that the show is theirs and who run it to suit themselves. And\nthis is true of the Department of Agriculture; it's true of many other\ndepartments. And I think it goes along with government, and it's\nnoticeable that if you trace back all the scandals, how very few of\nthem involve an elected official. Once in awhile one comes up. But\nmainly they're in that permanent structure of government where a\nfellow is in the warm cocoon of civil service and he feels he's in his\njob forever and ever and no one can touch him, and he looks at whoever\nis elected and says I'll be here after he's gone, and this is where\nyour scandals occur.\nWell, thank you all very much.\nThank you, governor.\n-12-\nPRES CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHeld October 25, 1972\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no correnctions are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\no00\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, good morning.\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read press release No 580)\nQ.\nGovernor, don't you think you are partially responsable\n(Prop.)\nfor 15, for recalling what the Legislature gave the state employees\nand then taking it back?\nA.\nNo, because once again the safeguard in there is if by a\ntwo-thirds majority the Legislature thinks that my veto has been\nwrong, they can override that veto. Now, the Governor is responsible\nfor the budget and is accountable for the size of it. And\ntherefore I've had to reckon in all of the priorities without\ngiving one of them just an automatic position above all others.\nO.\nAre you acknowledging then that state employees are under-\npaid $73 million dollars worth this current year?\nA.\nNo. As a matter of fact, the only way of course that such\na thing could have been adopted, the pay increase at the beginning of the\nthe austerity year, the year that is passed, would have been had\nwe -- had we passed a tax increase at that time. Now, this\nyear we have -- we are in the first of the two phases of correcting\nthese inequities that we believe we have found with regard to\ncomparative salaries. We have promised and we will keep the promise\nthat the second phase will go forward beginning in July 1st of the\ncoming year. In addition to that we have a study going forward on\nthe whole subject of state employees in every area, every king of work\ncomparison with people doing that same kind of work in other employ-\nment, so that we can have a -- a long range salary schedule plan\nthat will make sure that we have no inequities of the kind that\nhave been complained about in the past.\nQ.\nGovernor, are you acknowledging then that there are\ninequities at the present time? You say in your press release that\nyou have a fair salary level in f the future. Does that mean that\nsome of the salaries are not fair now?\n-1-\nA.\nWhat W. found and the thing we hat tried to correct,\ndiffering from just whether anyone gets a blanket pay raise, is the --\nthe fact that there are certain areas of employment within the\nstate that we believe have been out of line with similar employment\noutside the state. We found this with regard to engineers. And\nwe have set out and that's why this year and in them ming year, the\nsalary raises that we adopted were varied. It was just not a blanket\ncost of living inc rease across the state. We attempted to bring\nsome of these areas of employment up to what we thought was a\nproper level.\nQ.\nGovernor, will your budget in Janury have a cost of living\nincrease for state employees? Will there be an across the --\nacross the board increase in addition to correcting inequities?\nA.\nI think there will be an across the board increase but there 1\nalso be these certain areas where there will be corrected inequities.\nO.\nGovernor, what is your position on Proposition 16?\nA.\nProposition 16?\nO.\nYes.\nA.\nThis is much the same thing. Once again you would be\ntaking thematter of employment compensation in the state out of the\nhands of the elected officials.\nO.\nWhy didn't you --\nA.\nI'm opposed to 16. I have a -- as you know, I am\nextremely partial to the Highway Patrol. I think this is a group\nof men that -- they have few equals or matches any place in the\ncountry, and I want them to have what is the proper compensation.\nI cannot hold -- and they know this, with 16 as a method of doing\nit. But 16 -- or, I mean, the Highway Patrol is one of the groups\nthat we are going to ensure are brought up to the proper level.\nQ.\nWhy didn't you include Proposition 16 in here with 15\nthen in your prepared statement?\nA.\nWell, because I don't think their advertising has been as\nfalse and dishonest as the advertising of 15. This was the --\nmy main complaint, is that, as I said in here, the only way that\nthe advertising for Propossition 15 could be honest is if you kept\nthe ads the way they were with the one exception that you change the\nfinal line to \"Vote No,\" instead of \"Vote Yes.\"\nO.\nGovernor Reagan, in the same accusations made about\nProposition 20, that if you left it the same and changed it to\n\"Vote Yes,\" they have \"Don't lock up the beach.\" Now, are you\nA.\nNo.\nI\nopposed to Proposition 2\nI think that\nwhat has happened to us with the Court decision on Mammoth, that is\nactually very hurtful to this state's economy and to people's jobs\nand is causing unemployment. I think that what we are seeing\nas a result of that court decision is nothing to what we will see\nif Proposition 20 passes. I think we would go into stagnation\nthat will result in a loss of thousands of jobs.\nO.\nAre you opposed to the faleeness of the advertising,\nWhitaker and Baxter then?\nA.\nI think that you are referring to the advertising on\npadlocking the beaches.\no\nThat's right.\nA.\nI have to say that I know that the point is supposed to\nbe, and Proposition 20 would in a sense freeze privately owned\nproperty, individuals who own property in this area along the coast\nand not just beach property, but for a distance inland, and yet I agree\nthat the padlocking is misleading in that it portrays to the people\nthe idea that they would no longer have access to -- to the beach.\nThat is not true. And I would wish that they had advertised on what\nI think are really the basic faults of 20. As I have told\nyou so many times, I respect the -- not only the right, but the\ncapacity of the people to know and to understand. Now, Proposition\n20 is a horrendous thing. It absolutely should not pass. It is\ntrue that the right of an individual even to add a bedroom to\nhis home ifhe's within 3,000 feet of the ocean would besubject\nto being stopped if it was going to cost him $7500 to add that\nbedroom. In that sense he is padlocked in on his ability to --\nto do anything with his property or his home. But this -- I agree\nthis is misleading. It has given the impression to the people\nthat they can't use the beaches. I do not hold with that adver-\ntising. I do hold for the fact that Proposition 20 is unnecessary.\nIt will not improve what we are trying to do along the coastline.\nIt will not protect the coastline and it will cause a terrible\ndisruption for great distances inhand.\nO.\nWhat would you do about these misleading advertising --\nadvertisements?\nA.\nWell, I think it is a subject to look into. Particularly\nfar more than with candidates. There is a lot of lying going on\nin that field today. I think the -- I think the whole subject\nof initiatives should be looked into very carefully. I think that\n-3-\nout of the people's frustration with the failure of the Legislature\nin the last sessions to --- to resolve many of the serious problems\nwe are putting a great reliance on them even though I myself am\nnow proposing such an initiative with regard to taxes. But this,\nand the advertising on them is -- is a far different problem. You\nare talking about an action andprojecting what that action will do,\nand maybe with the fair campaign practices group we should find out\nsome ways to properly advertise and promote these issues.\nO.\nGovernor, one proposed solution would be to the creation\nof some -- variety of state commission to review and regulate the\nclaims of these propositions. Will you support some thought like\nthat?\nA.\nWell, I don't get into any specifics because as I say\nit is something that I think is going to have to be looked at as\nto what we do with them.\nc\nGovernor, on another subject. U. S. News and World Report\nhas an item saying that you are in intrigued shrink with the idea of being a\nroving ambassador for the Nixon administration, sort of like a\nRepublican Averill Harriman. Do you have any comment on that?\n?\nWell, that's their idea. No one has ever talked to me\nabout anything of the kind. I'm glad to see that I am no longer\nssing tagged by the press as a -- as a candidate for a particular\nimbassadorship which -- is something I would not want. I must admit\nI've been on three missions fo r the President, already, as you know.\nI would be very honored to do any other missions of that kind,\neither while I'm Governor or later on if they have any which I could\nbe helpful.\nO.\nGovernor, Seantor Cranston keeps saying you are going\nto be his opposition in 1974 in the Senate. Does he know something\nwe don't know either?\nA.\nNo, I think Senator Cranston shot an arrow inbo the air\nand like everything else he tries to do, it fell to earth and he\nknows not where.\nO.\nDo you know where it fell?\nA.\nNot --\nO.\nThen you are not going to run for the Senate.\nA.\nI didn't say that and I'll answer his question, too. I\ndon't know. I don't know what I'm going to do in '74.\n-4-\nQ.\nGovernor, there is also speculation that you might under\ncertain circumstances be persuaded to run for a third term.\nDo\nyou conceive of that happening?\nA.\nNo, no one's proposed such a thing to me.\nO.\nWell, can you conceive of it happening? No?\nA.\nNo, can't seeanything that would -- cause me to change\nmy mind,\nO.\nDo you conceive running for President in '76? How\nabout that, here I've just said and I've repeatedly said I don't\nknow what is going to happen in '72, and I'm sure I don't know what's\ngoing to happen in '74, and he's asking about '76. Would you like\nto go back to '66.\nO.\nHow about Proposition 4, the legislative initiative or\namendment?\nA.\nThe two-year session.\nQ.\nAre you for that or against it?\nA.\nNow, here again, let me propose neutrality. This is\nonce I've tried to keep my nose out of their affairs and I wish\nit were mutual. But no, I'll just -- however, I may personally\nfeel in voting, I'll keep to myself and I won't make any comment\non that.\n2.\nGovernor, does your proposal for initiative mean that\nwhen the legislature comes back in two weeks younare not going to\n(tax relief)\nsupport that SB 90 or AB 1000 in the Senate? Are you through\nwith that?\nA.\nWhat mine means is exactly what I said, that for four\nyears with an open mind we have met them and tried to find a way\nwith the Legislature. We have been balked by a very tiny group\nof legislators, not the majority by any means, in the Senate.\nAnd I have come to theconclusion that the only thing now is to\nguarantee to the people that they will have the right to make this\ndecision. And that's what I'm going to do.\nO.\nSo is that bill dead then as far as your support of it is\nconcerned, the proposal that failed by a couple votes?\nA.\nI will have an open mind if someone wants to come to\nme and talk about this, but it is going to have to meet the\nconditions that I have outlined already for number one, returning\nthemoney to the -- to the people by way of tax reduction, and\nguaranteeing that such adtax reduction will stay in effect and be\npermanent.\nO.\nThen are you saying now that that bill will have to be\namended for you to support it? If Mr. Moretti wants to try to\nrevive it.\nA.\nI think there are decisions that have to be made now,\nwould have to be made about that bill anyway. Because, if you\nwill remember, the bill had certain open clauses in it because we\ndid not know for dertain either about revenue sharing or what our\nsurplus would be. Now that we do have those figures, yes, there\nwould have to be some decisions made.\nO.\nGovernor, do you agree with any of the claims or previous\nclaims that the advertising on Proposition 22 was false and mis-\nleading?\nA.\nI think the advertising against 22 is pretty misleading.\nI don't see anything wrong and never have with allowing workers to\nvote by secret ballot so that they are free of coercion, as to\nwhether they want to be represented and who they want to represent\nthem.\nAnd I'm for 22.\nQ.\nThe charges involve the -- how it was represented when\nsignatures were gathered. Do you agree with any of that evidence?\nA.\nWell, that seems to have passed overlike so many things\nthat have wafted out of the Secretary of State's office. They get\na flurry of attention from all of you in the press and then they\ngo into limbo some place, and we never hear any more about it.\nO.\nMr. Bush in Los Angeles hasn't gone into limbo, he said\nthat he is going to ask the Grand Jury for indictments against the\nfirm that circulated those petitions in those --\nA.\nAll right, but I also recall reading where he never had\nanything presented to him -- as I recall he said, but hearsay\nevidence and gossip that there were people that felt they had been\nmisrepresented and as I said, if this is true, certainly if there\nis punishment to be meted out it should be meted out and if there\nare names that do not want to be on those petitions, those names should\nbe deleted and if that brings it down. less than the level necessary\nto put it on the ballot, then that also should follow. But sò: far\nthere seems to be no indication that it has been that widespread.\n-6-\nO.\nGovernor, on tax reform, the people will have a choice\nthen November 7 with the Watson amendment. Why do you continue\nto oppose it?\nA.\nI continue to oppose it because I think it would bring\nfiscal chaos. Here is a measure that would freeze into the\nConstitution 1,800,000,000 of tax increqses and it falls roughly\na billion two -- a billion and a quarter short of being balanced.\nAnd yet I don't think the people have been properly aware of that.\nAs a matter of fact, the proponents of Proposition 14 keep insisting\nthat this is false, this is not true. And I heard the Speaker\nof the Assembly on television just last night on the news programs\nand he was complaining that that is only true if you believe that\nthe people of California would sit back content to have 771,000,000\ndollars taken away in their school districts without asking the\nstate to make up that loss. And of course they would ask to make\nit up. You cannot have school districts like Los Angeles and\nSan Francisco virtually cut, their budgets in half, and that is\nwhat -- this is what has happened. Now there are a number of gigantic\ntax increases, they are tax increases leveled at the individual.\nIt totally throws our tax structure out of balance because in an\nattempt to give property tax relief he has gone across the board\ngiving 70 per cent of the relief to -- to business. And with\nbusiness this can become a recoverable item. This is in their --\ntheir production costs. And wethink -- the thing that I wish\npeople could understand is we did not set out to be opposed to 14.\nAfter trying for four years to get property tax relief we studied 14,\nbelieve me, with a hope and a prayer in our hearts that this would\nbe the answer. That finally with the failure of the legislature\nwe could get it done. It was with the greatest reluctance that\nwe found that this is not the answer. This is going to, as I say,\ncreate chaos fiscally in the state.\nQ.\nNew subject.\nO.\nNo, on the same subject. Governor, the Speaker also says\nthat he'd be delighted to put a tax initiativeon the ballot side by\nside with yours which would be aimed at closing loopholes. Would\nyou welcome that?\nA.\nWell, of course here again, and this is what we are\nhearing at the national level, all this talk about loopholes in a\ntax structure. First of all, the tax structure doesn't bear my\ntrademark and it certainly doesn't bear a Republican trademark,\neither California or nationally. Andif these great structural\nfaults existed these so=called loopholes for all theseyears, why\nhasn't someone on the other side when they have had the majority and even\noccupied the Governor's office, and the White House -- why haven't\nthey done something about them? The plain truth of the matter is\nthey are talking about some pretty legitimate deductions. Now in\nCalifornia, as I said in an address a short time ago, the California\nstate income tax is very steeply progressive. And 47 per cent of\nthe people in California, wage earners from about $10,000 on up, are\npaying 91 per cent of the total tax. And therefore I don't know\nwhere these loopholes are supposed to be found.\nQ.\nGovernor, what is your stand on the obscenity proposition?\nA.\nOn the obscenity? I'm in favor of it. I remember once\na few years ago in one, and there were defects in it, and so forth\nthat caused everyone concern, and so the people went ahead and voted\nno. And this time I -- and all that happened is porrography and\nobscenity has grown worse. I'm a great believer in free speech,\nI have fought about sensorship when I was in the motion picture\nindustry, but I think it is time that thepeople out loud tell their\nelected representatives they want something done about it.\nQ.\nGovernor, on the Mono decision. Evidently you've\ndecided not to call the legislature back in special session on\nthat. Can you say why you haven't and what you will propose to\nclarify that situation?\nA.\nWell, we have met with the people involved. We have\nmet with the unions on this. Thereis no question but that this is\nhurting and hurting our economy very much, and hurting individuals\nwho are being laid off. We have also talked to legislative leaders\nand their opinion was that there would be no point in calling back\na special session. But right now I understand that they are\nexploring and working on solutions for when they come back on it to\nresolve this. I want you to recall this Court decision came as pretty\nmuch of a surprise to everyone, including the legislators who voted\nfor the bill, because they claim it was not their legislative intent\nand I know I would not have signed the bill had I not been in\npossession of an opinion from the then Attorney General prior to\nthe '70 election, and the legislative council that this applied\nonly to public works projects\nO.\nWhere did Lieutenant Governor Reinecke get his $500 million\n-8-\ndollar figure; in talking to some bankers afterward they indicated\nthey couldn't place a figure on the impact of the Mono decision.\nDo you know where that figure came from?\nMR. MEESE: Yes, this was from a composite group of\nconstruction industry, labor unions affected and lending institutions,\nrepresentatives themselves.\nQ.\nGovernor, are you critical of the Supreme Court again\nwith this decision?\nA.\nYup.\nQ.\nJust a minute, Governor. Well, what about the fact that\nyou have appointed a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and he's\nbeen involved in a number of these decisions you have disapproved\nof, including the death penalty decision. Don't you have to share\nsome of the responsibility for his appointment?\nA.\nYup.\nB.\nGovernor --\nA.\nI don't ask --\nO.\nAre you saying you are wrong to have appointed him?\nA.\nNo, I'm saying I disagree with the part hels played in some\nof those decisions.\nQ.\nDo you regret appointing him?\nA.\nWhat?\nO.\nDo you regret appointing him?\nA.\nI wish he made some different decisions.\n(Laughter)\nQ.\nGovernor, what do you see as a solution to the Mono\ndecision, exempting track, exempting just rooms on houses or what?\nA.\nNo, I -- there is a local planning -- there are local\nplanning commissions, there are county planning commissions, and the\nfact that in the past there have been members of the commissions\nand elected local officials who have allowed themselves to succumb\nto pressure and to give variances and change rules that were\ndesigned to protect the surrounding real estate and protect the\nsurrounding property owners. That is -- I don't think is justifica-\ntion for the kind of hysteria that we are seeing now in this decision.\nThe answer is more accoutability, for all officials to be held more\naccountable by the people.\nQ.\nGovernor, this week and last, a number of us in this room\n-9-\nhave spent a great deal of time looking at campaign contribution\nfigures. We see contributions from the prosperous men of both parties\nIf I'm wrong, forgive me, but I -- none of us hafe seen Governor\nReagan's\nname\nas\na\ndonor. What's your personal policy on donations?\nEither at the state level or the national campaign.\nSargent\nA.\nWell, I'm a little bit like the Kennedy's giving Sergeant\nShriver in lieu of cash. I've bren all over the country campaigning\non my own. I think your personal contributions -- I have never been\na big contributor, never been able bo. Certainly not since I left\nmy previous occupation.\nO.\nHave you contributed this year?\nA.\nHuh?\nO.\nHave you contribuged any cash?\nA.\nYes, in a round -- but it's been cash in small amounts.\no.\nGovernor, I'd like to clarify your answer on your roving\nY\nambassadorship.\nou indicated that you might be intrigued if you\nwere asked. Is that a proper interpretation and is there any\nchance that you might resign the governorship to do such a thing?\nA.\nNo, oh, no. No, I'm not resigning the governorship.\nAll I meant to imply is I don't know what a roving ambassadorship\nmeans A whether that's a permanent assignment. Whether you are on\ncall oranything. I was simply indicating that I've been honored\nto be on the missions that I have been on and if at any time I can\nbe of help and the President wants to send me on another one, I'd\nbe very happy to go.\nQ.\nGovernor, has the sweet corn arrived from Ohio yet.\nA.\nNo, getting a little itchy about that, too.\n(\"aughter)\nO.\nI was wondering, with regard to an article on mortgage\nKarpe\nhome loan brokers, it came to my attention that Richard Carpy,\nwho is the Director of Real Estate -- Commissioner of Real Estate\nis actually a broker himself and is charged with the responsibility\nfor regulating the brokerage industry. There was a full disclosure\nmade. My question is this, regardless of the disclosure, do you\nfeel that it is proper for, essentially, the fox to guard the\nchickens?\nA.\nWell, the man in the Real Estate Commission has always\nbeen a man in the real estate business.\nAnd I would't know\nany other way to handle that, because he -- he is regulating a\n-10-\nvery highly technical profession there. And so far in our opinion --\nQ.\nThere have been a number of accusations made, however.\nOne is that the regulation is something that needs to be desired.\nSecondtly, there is false advertising on the firm in which Mr.\nCarpy are and his father have an interest in.\nA.\nYou are speaking about something I have never heard about\nbefore.\nI'd be very happy to look into it because I have great\nconfidence in him and I think he's donega good job.\nVOICE: Thank you, Governor.\n000\n-11-\n11/8\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD NOVEMBER 8, 1972\nTranscribed by: Governor's Press Office (RAS)\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's Press Conference in Los Angeles\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol Press Corps for their conven-\nience only. Because some of the newsmen's questions were inaudible on\nour tape recording, it is impossible in some cases to include the entire\nquestion.)\n-0-\nGood morning, or good afternoon or something. Well, I have no\nstatement other than, of course, I'm obviously pleased with the outcome\nof the presidential race, and have found some other sources of joy in\nthe various issues and candidates who are on the ballot, and some\ndisappointments, of course, nationwide and locally. But, then, you\ndon't win them all.\nQ\nGovernor, are you disappointed at all at what the proposition\nof the Assembly in the Legislature is now, even though President Nixon\ndid so well in California?\nA\nWell, I would have been pleased, of course, to have the next two\nyears with both houses of the Legislature more sympathetic with what\nwe are trying to do. On the other hand, while we've only had a\nfriendly legislature one year, the other five years have been with\nboth houses opposed to us, and we did achieve a leadership in the\nSenate, which, slim as it is, now gives as one house, and this is\nbetter than we had before we went in.\nC\nLast night, Governor, Ed Reinecke said that he's going to run\nfor governor, and Houston Flournoy said that he's intending to run for\ngovernor. It seems like the gubernatorial sweepstakes are on. Are\nyou going to make an early endorsement, or how do you view all your\nother office holders now wanting to run for governor.\nA\nWell, I think it's been pretty obvious for a long time that\nthere have been a number of people who have eyed that spot, and I can't\nblame them for doing that; I think this is true on both sides. As a\nmatter of fact, I think that the\nsome of the legislators on the\ndemocratic side, who have been running for governor all this last year,\nhave been responsible for the failure of the legislature to have a\nbetter achievement record than it's had.\nQ\nWhat are you going to run for?\nA\nHuh? I have no decision on what I'm going to do beyond '74.\n-1-\nQ\nWho are your favorites, Governor, in that\n(inaudible)?\nA\nI've made no statement on that either.\nQ\nGovernor, is there any possibility that President Nixon\n(inaudible)\nA\nNo, I can't conceive of anything, God willing, that would have me\nleave before these two years are up.\nQ\nGovernor, how do you account for the fact that President Nixon\nmade a sweeping victory and yet derived so few candidates on the\nnational scene.\nA\nWell, I've never been a great believer in coattails. I think\nperhaps that this is the kind of political myth that has grown up\nperhaps when the parties were more nearly aligned\nit has the size\nand registration\nor out of a long time majority party run. And then,\nwhen you have a candidate at the top of the ticket that the membership\nof a party is wholeheartedly behind, of course it looks like coattails.\nThey're pleased with him, and they go down the line and they vote the\nstraight ticket. We're a minority party, and what we had this time\ngreat\nwas a/disaffection on the part of the head of the ticket on their side.\nBut I don't think this made them necessarily say, I'm leaving my party.\nIn fact, I predicted, if you can call it a prediction, I discussed\nmany times from my own experience of having been a member of the other\nparty the possibility that people for the first time going over and\nvoting for the Republican candidate for the presidency might very well\nbe strengthened in their determination, however, to remain loyal to\ntheir party on the rest of the ticket. And I think this explains a\ngreat deal of what's happened.\nQ\nGovernor, Nixon ran behind in California as compared to\n(inaudible). Does this mean the Republicans are in trouble in\nCalifornia?\nA\nOh no. We're in trouble to the extent that we're out-registered\nbetter than three to two. And we always said that our state had more\nof a challenge than the rest did. First of all, this was where McGovern\nscored his great victory, where he had spent $2½ million in the primary\nand conducted\nspent a million of that on registration\nconducted\na\ngreat registration drive, and let's face it, they licked us on\nregistration. They outdid us. Late in the campaign, we got under way\nwith a drive that turned out to be very successful for us, but too\nlate and too little; it couldn't catch up with the lead that our\nopponents had piled up. No, nationwide, and in all of the polls, they\n-2-\nQ (cont.) continued to refer to California as one of several states\nin which McGovern had a better chance than he had in those other states.\nAnd I am tremendously pleased with the majority that we provided the\nPresident.\nQ\nBut what about the\n(inaudible).\nA\nNo, I think the Democratic Party has got some troubles with a\ndivided front here in the state, because a great many Democrats have\nproven in the last two elections, for governor and now for the president,\nthat they are not going to go along with this way-beyond, liberal\nelement that seems to have gotten such a foot in the door of the\nDemocratic leadership. Now, the trouble is, as a minority party, we've\ngot to use the between years, not in the emotionalism of an election\nyear, to increase our registration, and I think to point out to a great\nmany people who still consider themselves Democrats that idealogically\nthey are much closer attuned to our philosophy than they are to the\nleadership of the party in this state.\nQ\nCan you give us your reaction to the passage of Proposition 20?\nA\nWell, everybody wants the coast protected. I was opposed to the\nmethod that was proposed in 20. We had our own program going forward.\nI will now proceed to implement this. The people have spoken. There\nas\nwas never any quarrel, I think, in this one/to protection of the\ncoastline. It was a means of doing it. I preferred legislation. Now\nthis calls for four more years of study of the coastline. Well I would\nhope that when we appoint these commissions that they would begin their\nstudy with a three-foot stack of research material that is the result\nof the last four years of study which we only received some months ago,\nand which I think is one of the most exhaustive studies of the coastline\nthat I think has ever been made.\nQ\nYou have a lot of appointments to make\n(inaudible). What are\ncan\nyou looking for; what/we expect\n(inaudible)?\nA\nWell, common sense, for one thing, and of course a desire, as we\nall have, to see that our coastline is protected.\n0\nPresident Nixon today announced that\n(inaudible).\nA\nNo, I've told you, I've got two years to go as governor, and that,\nthe Lord willing, I intend to fill out.\nQ\nWhat other possibilities\n(inaudible).\nA\nYou mean me naming who might be other possibilities? Oh, I have\nno idea. I know that in any new administration you have people that\nchoose to leave that have been there through one administration\n-3-\nA (cont.)\nsome of hi\nown cabinet members have\nnted at this even\nbefore the election\nand you make certain changes, so what those will\nbe, I have no idea. He's certainly never discussed it with me.\nO\nIs there a further possibility of\n(inaudible).\nA\nWell, I only know what I've read in the papers or heard you\nfellows talking about. I know that name has been suggested. But I\nhave had no contact with anyone in Washington who has suggested any of\nthese names. I, just as I say, I know what I read in the papers.\n0\nGovernor, in Proposition 21, which passed as a very controversial\nmeasure, some people now say that they are now doubtful of its con-\nstitutionality. What is your feeling about that, Governor\n(inaudible) ?\nA\nWell, if there's legal question, I'm quite sure that there will\nbe people that will bring it to the court's attention, and the court\nwill make a decision. I, however, think that it was an opportunity\nthat once again for the people to express once again how they feel\nabout a means of solving a problem that all of us want solved. And,\nin my own opinion, bussing is certainly the last resort. It has\nengendered more ill feeling, when what we are seeking is a better\nfeeling.\nor\nSome of the same doubt hung over the initiative to restore the\ndeath penalty. What's your feeling about that?\nA\nWell, the people of California have said to the State Supreme\nCourt that the death penalty they want in the Constitution of the State\nof California. Our next problem now is how do you implement that with\nregard to the United States Supreme Court decision which said not that\nit was unconstitutional at the national level, but that the manner in\nwhich it was done in many states was unconstitutional, that states must\nbe more specific in their statutes as to what crimes were subject to\nit. And here, I think, of course, it's going to be a legislative\naction interpreting the United States Supreme Court decision, and then\nproceeding on that line, and I'm quite sure that among, not only this\nstate, but a great many other states, there will be frequent court\ntests of specific instances to make sure just exactly where the United\nStates Supreme Court decision lies.\nQ\nGovernor\n(inaudible).\nA\nWe haven't had an opportunity to even discuss that as yet.\n-4-\nOr\nAre you optomistic about tax reform, now that\n(inaudible).\n.\nA\nWell, I told you before the election what I'm going to do. I\nexpect in the coming week to deliver a message to the legislature on\nthis subject of calling a special election, of putting an issue on the\nballot for the people to decide on the basis that I outlined a little\nearlier. And we have been busy framing the actual legislation.\nQ\nGovernor, on the tax issue, do you think with the increase of\nthe Democratic majority in the Assembly, that they're likely to put\nsome kind of a proposal on the ballot\n(inaudible)?\nA\nI don't know. There's been some talk about that. I would hope\nthat instead of confronting the people with two initiatives that we\ncould have some of the same success that we've had with our tax reform\nproposals of getting together and going before the people and saying\nhere is a proposal that will meet the problems of school finance, of\ngiving some homeowner tax relief, and the other tax relief that I\nmentioned.\n0\nGovernor, how much room is there to compromise\n(inaudible)?\nA\nI certainly hadn't thought there was any, but I'm certainly willing\nto see what anyone proposes. Actually, what our proposal is, is a\nboiled down version of the compromise measure that we had before the\nlegislature which failed in the Senate.\n0\nGovernor,\n(inaudible)\nthe proponents of Proposition 20\nfeel that they can expect out of the Senate Rules Committee\nare\npreservation oriented\n(inaudible). Is it fair and logical to\nassume that you could effect a balance in your appointments so that\nthere would be, for example, a development 1\n(inaudible).\nA\nWell, no that would be kind of going against my own belief\nabout the protection of the coast.\nThe\nand that would just make for\na constant bickering and fighting there. Now I'm talking about what\nwe have always believed, and what the three feet of paper that the\nresearch we already have on this has indicated that you have a number\nof counties up and down the coast and a number of communities\nthey\nhave their planning commissions. You have 412 miles--40 percent of the\ncoastline--already in government ownership\nwe're talking about 600\nmiles of the coast, and most of it north of San Francisco, where there's\nvirtually--where there is no swimming, where the water is too cold\nit's not that kind of a coastline\nvery scenic. So we have a much\nhigher percentage than 40 percent ownership from Point Conception south.\n-5-\nA (cont.) Now, I think that, I have always insisted that one of the\nthings that I think we should look at the 412 miles we already own.\nGovernment is not that pure. It could be that government is not\nproperly utilizing some of its holdings. And certainly government\nshould clean up its shoreline before it talks about anyone else. But\nthen I think there's got to be recognition of private property owner\nrights. I don't think that the thing that is in 20, that the commission\nhas got to be guarding against is that the possibility of the nuisance\nkind of action, the grudge action on the part of an individual who takes\nsomeone who was living a half a mile from the ocean, couldn't even see\nthe ocean because there was a hill between him and the ocean, and yet\nin this proposition, he wants to add a bedroom to his house and a\nneighbor decides to protest and make him go through the process of the\ncommissions trying to get permission to build that bedroom. I think\nwe've got to have the kind of commission that recognizes that in\nProposition 20, there are these inherent possibilities, and to make\nsure the commission establishes guidelines in a hurry for this protec-\ntion. One thing we've always considered is that in the development of\nthe coastline, and where private developments are concerned, that there's\ngot to be access at reasonable intervals for people to get to the beach\nbecause the actual water edge is all open to the public now. There can\nof\nbe no fencing off/a section of the beach down to the water's edge. But\nyou can do it effectively if you take 10 or 15 miles of beach, and you\njust don't have any access, well, people might be able to walk a little\nways from either end of this on the sand, for a day on the beach, but\nthey're certainly not going to walk 5 miles in the middle. And here\nI think there's got to be some reasonable access to things of that\nkind.\nO\nThe Public Utilities had warned before the election\n(inaudible).\nDo you in effect then see the possibility of a moratorium on the build-\ning of power plants within five years or so.\nA\nWell, I think this is one of the first things that the newly\nappointed commissions are going to have to turn their attention to,\nbecause if they don't, California is going to know the eastern problem\nof brownouts, and we're going to find ourselves with power rationing\nand a few things of that kind. And I think, and I've said for several\nyears that the proper approach to this is to go in now and find areas\nalong the beach and be able to say within these zones, within these\nareas, yes, power plant siting is possible. And stop this hit or miss\n-6-\nA (cont.) of letting power company try to find site, and then\nhaving a big legal battle over whether they can. And this I think\nwould be one of the first things that the commission should apply\nthemselves to.\nQ\nGovernor, this election is the same old story about the people\ncomplaining about the complexities of the propositions, the length of\nthe propositions, the slogans; can anything be done to clarify it?\nA\nI don't know. I said we certainly ought to take a look it. We\nought to take a look also to make sure we're not going to substitute\ninitiatives for the legislative process. I think most of these were\nborn out of frustration of things that weren't done. But on the other\nhand, my faith in the people and their wisdom comes along and is upheld.\nThe people proved they were pretty selective. Almost $2 million was\nspent, for example, on Proppsition 15 which would have made a terrible\nchange in the administrative procedures of budgeting with regard to\nthe salaries of state employees. Only $20 thousand was raised to try\nto present the other side to this case. And $20 thousand lick $2 million,\nwhich, incidentally, ought to give all of us a little comfort about\nthis feeling that has been so widely voiced in this campaign that money\nalone can determine the outcome of something. Because the people weren't\nfooled by $2 million worth of propaganda.\nO\nGovernor, in terms of outcome, you were for Proposition 18, and\nProposition 18 failed. How do you view that.\nA\nHow do I view it? This was one case where you had the whole\ncommunications media and the entire entertainment industry lined up\nbecause they were fearful of censorship. And I had to kind of smile\nat that because I'll challenge that no one in the entertainment or the\ncommunications media has waged a longer fight against censorship than\nI have myself in all those years when I was an officer in the Screen\nActors Guild. And I would say now that I think the people, frightened\nby the prespect of a censorship and thought control and so forth, under\nthe kind of advertising they were getting, expressed that belief. I\nstill believe that the people of California are stick and tired of\npornography. And I would say now, that having won their victory, the\nmotion picture industry for one has a responsibility now to impose its\nown self censorship of the kind that we had for years under the Motion\nPicture Production Code to clean up the stuff that they are putting on\nif\nthe screen. And/they don't do it, they're terribly irresponsible and\nthey deserve everything that happens to them.\n-7-\nQ\nWhat about the dollars and cents that went to the proposition.\nDo you think that had anything to do with it\nthe people who are\nmaking pornographic movies or making X-rated movies?\nA\nWell, they obviously aren't making them for charitable purposes.\nThey expect to make a buck out of them. But the industry has a\nresponsibility; television has a responsibility. It's all well and\ngood to say, oh the individual can choose if he wants to see something\ndirty. What about the man that takes his wife and children to the\nmovies to a movie that he has gone out of his way to determine that\nthat's a safe movie and wants his children to see, and suddenly on the\nscreen comes the trailer for next week's show. And he has no control\nover that, and he can't grab them and hold his hand over their eyes.\nBut they're in a theater; he had taken every precaution, made sure\nthe picture was the proper one for the children to see; he had no\nprotection against them being forced to see something they had not\nexpected to see.\nO\nProposition 22 (inaudible).\nA\nWell, I totally disapprove of what he's trying to do. Jack\nWilliams is a good governor. I think it's part and parcel of the way\nCesar Chavez has attempted his union negotiating, and his attempt to\nget membership. He never really has gone out on the kind of drive for\nunion membership that most unions do, when they present the benefits\nbelonging to the union and ask you to join. He has tried coercion;\nhe has tried to force the employer to make a contract with him, in\nwhich between them they say to the workers, whether you want to or\nnot, if you want to make a\nliving, you've got to join my union.\nAnd it wasn't that widespread. I felt good about the number of people--\nsomething over 45 percent that voted for Proposition 22. I would hope\nnow that the Legislature would take a look and minus some of the things\nthat were obviously flaws in that bill as there usually is in an\ninitiative process, still come back to the right of an individual\nworker to vote by secret ballot on whether he will have a bargaining\nagent and who that bargaining agent will be. For 25 years I served a\nunion that had that rule---secret ballot for our members on all policy\nmatters. I think that more working men and women of the unions today\nshould recognize that they are mobilized to be against this very thing-\nthe right to vote--and they are mobilized nine times out of ten by\ntheir own hired hands\nthose people who make a career out of being\nunion officials, because they prefer having more control than that.\n-8-\nA\n(cont.)\nAnd\nthere\nS a control when a union\nmber has to stand up\nand be counted when he votes, instead of going in as he does in the\nregular elections and voting secretly. And again, for six years I've\nbeen trying to get the right of secret ballot for union members in\ntheir own unions on policy matters. And you never seem to be able to\nled and\nget it past the lobbying which is/done by certain labor officials.\nO\nGovernor,\nBob Finch\n(inaudible).\nA\nWell, no, you'd have to ask him. He's made several statements\nto the effect that he wants to return to California, and survey the\npossibility of running for an office in '74, so ask him.\nQ\nYou mentioned, Governor, that one of the reasons that Proposition\n18 failed was that the entire\n(inaudible). Are you suggesting\nthat all those\n(inaudible)\nwere duped by propaganda?\nA\nNo, but I think there was a loyalty to the industry. I think\nthat John Wayne's statement the other day when he frankly, courgeously\nand honestly admitted that the original analysis of 18 that was given\nto him and which enlisted his support and his effort by way of\ncommercials had not been accurate, and that there were many parts of\n18 that he thought were worth while; he still had some reservations\nabout some things in there that he thought could be used in giving,\nlet's say, too much police power individuals, and these concerned him.\nBut he was pretty outspoken in his belief that we have gone too far,\nincluding the motion picture industry in the field of pornography, and\nhe'd like to see something done about it.\nO\nDo you, yourself, have any reservations about\n(inaudible)?\nI know that\nA\nNo,/the motion picture industry had a legal analysis which they\nused quite widely among their people. And I had that legal analysis\nsubmitted to other legal advisors, and they were in complete disagreement\nwith it. They did not find the great menaces to freedom in this\nmeasure that the original analysis did, and on that basis I felt that\nthe people should speak out against it. And I'll say again, if the\nmedia does not recognize that this vote was a vote of the people because\nof their concern about individual freedom, but it was not a vote that\nthey want pornography, then the media is going to be in for a great\nbig headache one of these days, because I think the people are fed up\nto here with some of the trash that's being fed them.\nThank you, Governor.\n0\nAre you going on vacation?\nA\nAm I going on vacation? Gee, I'm catching a plane right now to\n-9-\nA (cont.)\ngo back to Sacramento and just revel with the legislators.\n--0-\nQ\n(inaudible)\nA\nreapportionment in the legislature, that the Democrats say\nthat anything less than a 60-40 Democratic majority, they consider that\na Republican district. That's a little bit like the Rams, you know,\nsaying that they' 11 play if he's brought them two touchdowns.\nQ\n(inaudible)\nA\nI wish you you'd ask that publicly; I would like to have talked\nabout it, because I don't think that the legislature, frankly, is the\nbody that should be reapportioning. It is building conflict of\ninterest. Any incumbent is going to try to preserve his incumbency.\nAnd right now, with a brand new election, I would like to see\nreapportionment handled on a basis in which voter registration is not\nallowed as a factor in determining the outline of a district. There's\nno reason why it should be. Community of interest, contiguity of an\narea\nthis should be the basis, not how many people are registered\none way or the other where you come up with the ridiculously shaped\ndistricts that we presently have.\nAs long as you've stopped me and we're on this subject having a\naccond press conference, let me just throw one out that if\nthe\npeople would stop and consider this, if the legislature had the\nstatesmanship to do this\ntoday we now have state senators\nrepresenting more people than a congressman represents in the United\nStates government in California. We have 43 congressional districts\nbased on our population. Just for a trial run, what would be wrong\nwith dividing this state into 43 congressional districts based on their\ncommunities of interest, and then, have each one of those districts-\n43 of them-- be a Senate district enlarge our Senate to 43 and have\neach district he two Assembly districts, and enlarge our Assembly to\n86. And the voter, instead of having to remember that he was in this\nnumbered Assembly district and that numbered Congressional district\nand that numbered Senatorial district would be in one district which\nwould determine his congressman, his state senator and the two\nassemblymen. Now, you can divide that district in two or you can just\nleave it that the two run at large in the same district of the Assembly.\n0\n(inaudible)\nA\nHuh? I know; and as I've told you before, in six years I've\nfound out when you mention common sense in relation to government,\nyou run into trouble.\nThank you, Governor.\n0\nGovernor, if I could raise a couple of questions here that I was\nnot able to get during your news conference one was your comments on\nthe\nyour concern about the role of the media on Proposition 18. I\ngather you feel that the media itself could be jeopardized in the long\n-10-\nQ (cont.) run as a result of the vote on 18.\nA\nWell, yes. Let's just take one phase of it, the one I was talking\nabout\nthe motion picture industry. And, of course this could apply\nto television or anything else. All of you were too young to remember\nthat back in the 20's, the motion picture industry was doing pretty\nmuch the same thing that it's beginning to do now, and there was such\na wave of resentment across this country, that to head off government\ncensorship, the motion picture industry formed the Motion Picture\nProduction Code and hired Will Hayes who had cleaned up baseball, to\nbecome the czar of the motion picture industry. And for many years,\nthat production code, that voluntary code, was subscribed to by all\nthe producers of pictures, and pictures enjoyed their greatest boxoffice\nand their greatest support by the people they were known as a family\nmedium of entertainment. And what I was suggesting was that now that\nthis has been defeated, the industry had better take another look and\nsee if they should not reinstitute a production code of voluntary self\ncensorship based on good taste and sense, or they're going to find the\nsame resentment on the part of the people.\nQ\nOne other question, Governor. Last night when President Nixon\nappeared at the rally in Washington with Vice President Agnew, there\nwere a chance of twelve more years with the implication that Vice\nPresident Agnew might make a fine candidate in 1976. Given the size\nof this election, and the returns that you saw here in California, how\nwould you assess those prospects looking down the road?\nA\nWell, if you were in Chicago instead of at the Shoreham, they\nwere talking about Senator Percy who would give them the other eight\nyears after Nixon was through. I have a hunch there's going to be a lot\nof speculation now, and there will be a number of names that will be\nsuggested. But certainly the Vice President was a part of that very\ntremendous victory, and did a great job of campaigning as the President\nsaid.\nO\nGovernor, what are your aspirations? I know you've answered that\nquestion, but it seems unlikely that you're going to retire in two years.\nA\nWell, when you say retire, as to sitting in a rocking chair or\nsomething, no. But I don't know; I really don't know, and there are\nsome things that I think need doing very much. For example, I've touched\non it up here---the necessity, I think, for doing some economic educating\nsay by way of the pulpit and the podium on some of the issues that were\nraised in this campaign. All this mythology that one party is devoted\nto the people and the other party has somehow sneaked in dishonestly and\nrepresents only a handful of special interests and so forth---none of\nthis is true. And the figures belie it. I find my mind running that\nthat wouldn't be retirement. It doesn't necessarily mean you hold an\noffice, but it may be some missionary work is needed.\nThank you, Governor.\n# # #\n-11-\n12,\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD DECEMBER 12, 1972\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, good morning. That's the sum\ntotal of my opening statement. Yes.\nO.\nGovernor, I'm Charles Wallen from the National Review\nand I'd like to ask you two questions, and with your permis sion\nthe first question is so long I'd have to read it.\nA.\nFine. National Review?\nO.\nYes, National Review.\nA.\nBe kind to me, please, I'm a subscriber.\nO.\nI heard that you made a statement in Phoenix recently\nthat you would be on the Waldorf Salad circuit after 1974. And\nnext to the President you are even now themost prominent Republican\nand certainly the most famous in the country. And I'm just wonder-\ning if it would not be more comforting to the Republic that you\nshould challenge Senator Cranston in 1974, and pave the way through\nthis forum for the Presidential primaries in 1976. This would be\na two-pronged approach to making a -0 the Republicans the majority\nparty. It is a national notoriety and almost a national disgrace\nthat California has the two worst Senators inthe nation, even worse\nthan those from Mississippi. So by becoming Senator in 1974 --\n(Laughter)\nO.\n-- and lecturing as a Senator and lighting up the sky, you\ncould serve the nation another ten years -- if you ran for President\nin 1976 you could serve the nation another ten years beyond this\noffice, and the Republicans, I assure you, are quite anxious about\nyour health, that you watch your health, which I understand is\nexcellent. That's the first question.\n(Laughter)\nO.\nAny moreoquestions, gentlemen?\nA.\nI can answer that more briefly. I do watch my health\nand always have. Let me simply say, as I have said so many times\nto the rest of this press corps here, that I have made no plans\nor decisions as yet with regard to what takes place after 1974. The --\nand you made it a little more effete than I did, about the circuit\nthat I said I could get on. I call it the mashed potato circuit.\nBut in -- in Arisona at the Governor's conference in a couple of inter-\nviews I was simply again reiterating that I have made no decision\nand this same matter of a possible Senate race come up and someone\nsaid if not that how do you remain active, and I then would try to\npoint out alternatives that you didn't have to just sit on the front\nporch because -- just because you didn't hold elective office. I\nthought and still think that a job to do, kind of economic and\npolitical education in this country, by way of every medium, to\nreveal or expose the political mythology and economic mythology\nthat dominates a great deal of our thinking and so I answered the\nquestion in that context. But again I have -- so far my only\ndecision is that what we are going to do in these next two years here\nin California.\nQ.\nGovernor, I'll --\nA.\nWait, the had a second question there.\n(Laughter)\nc.\nCan we wait till next week?\nO.\nOne more. I understand that the dome building, while\nit hasn't been condemned, it's been made unsafe for school children\nto visit, and you know, the Capitol has been moved twice in\nCalifornia history, and I'm just wondering if this wouldn't be an\nideal time tamove it again. You know, the Capitol is 400 miles\nremoved from about 75 per cent of the population, and wouldn't it be\na good thing to move it either to San Francisco or Los Angeles?\n(Laughter)\nA.\nWell, I have to say there are a great many spots in\nCalifornia that I suppose would be considered by the tourists as far\nmore attractive than Sacramento. I doubt now with the size of\nState government and the size of the state that the moving of the whole\nCapitol with all the other buildings and so forth would ever been\ncontemplated -- considered as moving it from this city. There is\nthe specific problem of this particular, and then it is just a part\nof this building, replacing with another building or strengthening\nthis to meet the egrthquake standards. And this is a decision that\nI think is -- has to be made very soon. But I doubt if the people\nof California now would hold still for what would be entailed in a moving\nof the -- of the government. And the only thing -- I'm not sure\nthat you could put the Capitol in either San Francisco or Los\nAngeles without reviving the old two Californias concept, because\nwe have a sort of a Mason-Dixon line here. I still say as a\nsouthern alifornian that it was instituted by northern California.\nThe south doesn't feel thatway at all. But I don't know how you'd\nchose which one of those cities. Maybe we could put it half way\nbetween and eliminate the Mason-Dixon.\nQ.\nGovernor, on that same subject, Senator Collier says he's\ntrying to get a bill through next year which will combine in one\nbill 50 million for new Capitol Towers, and 1 million for\nGovernor's mansion, and 18 million to rebuild the old Capitol,\nwould you go for that approach?\nA.\nWell, I have to say that -- first of all, I think this is one\nof the handsomest most historic state capitols in the nation,\nand if you have to spend 18 million dollars just to preserve this\nas a historic monument and another 50 to build another building,\nwhy don't you spend the 18 million and stay in the building here?\nBecause that's what it would take to make this building useable and as\nte as anything new that they were going to build. And frankly,\nI didn't intend to say this at this time, but that would be my\nchoice. I think this capitol building should be preserved and not\nas a monument but should be preserved as a working building to\nperform the functions of government. And I -- I don't see those\nfellows upstairs needing 30 or 40 stories of new building.\nO.\nWould you veto that part ofthe bill if it was sent to\nyou then?\nA.\nNow, you know I never talk about a veto till I see the\nbill.\nQ.\nGovernor --\nO.\nGovernor, mine went back to his first question and I'll\ntry to keep my question shorter. You told us several times, I\nbelieve, that you did not plan to seek third term, that was one\nthing you were not going to do.\nA.\nThat's right, yes.\nO.\nHowever, lately I've -- various pundits have been listing\nthat as one of your alternatives and you seem to have been - you\nseem to have been qu ed to flowing back a littl\nIs it still your\nintention definitely not to seek a third term?\nA.\nThat's right, I've made that very plain. I believe --\nand I still believe that the state should have a limitation similar\nto the federal government in that regard. I didn't comment with\nregard to the question or the statements about our Senatorial\nrepresentation. But if some other states would like to offer their\nsenators to us on a contract basis, I'd be happy to discuss it with\nthem.\nO.\nGovernor, in regard to the Capitol, I think the state\narchitect's report was it would take 18 million dollars to preserve\nit merely as a museum type situation and over 40 million to restore\nit so that it could continue to be used in themanner of speaking\nit is now.\nA.\nI understand, now I could be wrong in this, so don't\nhold me to it -- I understand that there's been some confusion about\nthose figures. But that the making useful and safe of this building\nis far less costly than the new building. As a matter of fact, it\nis my understanding that the chief architest said. that those\nfigures did not accurately represent the findings.\nQ.\nGovernor, Allen Post says that reducing income tax pext\nyear will not be good fiscal policy for California. How strongly\nwill you push for reduction of income tax?\nA.\nWell, I am committed to that and I'm committed to the\ntheory that you don't take any more money from the people thatn\nyou need. Now, I have a warm and friendly feeling toward Allen\nPost, but Allen Post a year ago said we needed 750 million dollars\nin new taxes now, and now thewhole question that we are arguing about\nis what to do with the surplus, that we had, instead of the 750\nmillion dollars deficit. So I still hold with mine. I do not --\nwe are having meetings this week, cabinet meetings to take up for\nthe first time and determine exactly what thesituation is with\nregard to surpluses, both one-time and on-going. But I am committed\nto the idea of -- of an income tax cut.\nO.\nSpeaker Moretti's initial reaction to that proposal was,\nin his words, \"It makes no sense at all.\" If you have to proceed\nas you did on SB 90 to negotiate with the legislature, he feels\nwhat chance do you have of getting the income tax --\nA.\nIt will be presented to the legislature and then I would\n-4-\nhope that the legislacure would see the validity of it. The simple\nfact remains that California ranks very high, I believe about second\nor third, possibly, with regard to the total per capita taxation\nfor state and local government. And the national average today,\nI just happen to think that government can reduce itself, every\ngovernment or all governments, in size, and cost and power because\nwehave had a taxk force working on this whole subject of taxation,\nas you know, in connection with our other plans with regard to local\ngovernment and what changes can be made. And the plain truth is\nthat nationwidethe average tax burden is taking over 43 cents out\nof every dollar earned in the United States. And that would mean\nthat with California ranking as high asit does, it must be more than\n43 cents that our people are paying for the costs of government,\nfederal, state and local.\nNow, this puts a responsibility on the back of every level\nof government to find ways to reduce its share of that 43 cents\nthat it is taking from the worker, and we are going to try to do it\nand I think that when the Speaker and I have an opportunity to talk\nabout this, when we know the exact figures and what the possibilities\nare, I think that he -- he certainly can be talked to and I -- and I\nthink that he would be willing to listen. I realize that philosophic-\nally he perhaps has a feeling, leaning towards utilizing the income\ntax more, but as I have pointed out on a nymber of occasions, the\nState -- the California state income tax is more steeply progressive\nproportionately than the federal income tax. Now, it's supposed\nto be progressive to offset regressive taxes, but it has gone beyond\nthat because the plain truth of the matter is that only 43 per cent\nof our taxpayers earn $10,000 or more, and that 43 per cent are\npaying 91.6 per cent of the total income tax burden in California.\nAnd if there is a way that -- as you can see, that takes the hole\nmiddle income range of the people that are already the greatest victims\nof property tax and every other tax. They are bearing the greatest\nshare of thecostof government, and if there is any way to help out\neven a little bit in that, I think we ought to do it.\no\nGovernor, how much of a continuing surplus do you see that\ncan be used for a -- continuing income tax?\nA.\nThat's the thing that I can't answer, that's going to be\nthe subject of the meetings that we are holding for the rest of the\nweek.\nThere are a number of things that have happened, for example\n-5-\nthe -- there are som federal acts that may have ffected what we\nhad earlier roughly guessed at as a surplus, affected it adversely.\nOne of them, HR 1, and ke -- all of these thingshave to be factored\nin so we know now -- and the final passage of SB 90 was changed in some\nof the figure amounts that were in it originally - all of these\nthings we have to sit down and find out exactly where we stand.\nQ.\nWhen would the bill to do this be introduced, early in\nthe year?\nA.\nWell, it would be in the next session, yes.\nO.\nEarly in the session?\nA.\nAs early as I could do it.\nO.\nGovernor, which way are your inclinations on Senator\nShort's bill to raise legislative salaries? Are you for that?\nA.\nWell, as you know, I have followed a pplicy of trying to\nkeep the separation of powers intact, and I have not injected myself\ninto these legislative matters. And --\nO.\nAre you --\nA.\nI think I will be consistent with that.\nQ.\nAre you going to sign the bill?\nA.\nWe -- again, you know what I better do, I better take\nthe \"fifth to this extent. If I once open up the subject at all\nthere are a number of pieces of legislation that are now before me\nthe desk and as you know I have taken a position that until\nwe have our regular process of cabinet and staff consultation on\nall of these, I don't comment on whether I will sign or not sign.\nSo rather than take one at a time, let me just give a blanket answer\nand say that beginning this right now, and in this coming week,\nwe have scheduled meetings on these pieces of legislation and so\nI'd rather not answer on any of them until I -- we have had those\nmeetings.\nQ.\nGovernor, on the same subject. That bill contains an\nelement which provides for your office personnel and other assistants\n$20,000 per year increased to 30,000. Now, what staff had you\ncomtemplated that to affect?\nA.\nNo, that was in a late amendment. I didn't even know\nit was in there until just recently I've learned this -- that it\nwas amended in as a late amendment. That was a piece of legislation\nthat didn't have anything to do with actually raising salaries.\nWhat we have been trying to do, and we had wanted legislation earlier\nin the year to do away with the custom which we follows as every\n-6-\nGovernor has done in every administration that 1 can remember in\nCalifornia of borrowing Governor's staff from other departments.\nAnd we are trying to get a more honest budget by creating a structure\nwhereby the Governor's staff will actually reflect and be on the\nGovernor's budget all of his staff instead of having staff members\nthat are borrowed from other departments and are on the budgets\nof other departments. And that has been put into this, it does\nnot call for a raise, it is simply -- it is a -- was a technical\nbill that would then allow in the future in doi ng this that the\nGovernor's staff would have salary ranges that were up to the level\nof department head salaries.\nWait till I get back there and then I'll come down --\nO.\nGovernor, what bills do you plan to be signing today?\nED MEESE: None.\nA.\nNone, I signed a big stack yesterday and none today.\nThey tell me, I'm happy to say, there are a great many bills,\nnon-controversial, as you know, that -- the technical kind of bills\nthat I have often said that if they got lost on the way to the printer\nit wouldn't change the quality of life style in California any,\nthese would be signed. But the bills you are interested in, there\nwon't beany taken or signed today, are those where there is an issue\nand they are going to have to be round-tabled. Now here and then\nover here.\nQ.\nThe bills you have before you do include appropriation\nbills of up to 300 million dollars, and you -- can you say generally\nwhat your policy will be toward those sincethey would ostensibly use\nup most of that surplus that's left.\nA.\nWell, let me answer that with my philosophy instead. The\nvery fact that now after six years we have finally removed the state\nfrom the threat of insolvency that hung over us for so long, and\nthat we inherited six years ago, the fact that that's listed has\nnot changed my belief i n cut, squeeze and trim one bit. I believe\nin Justice Oliver Wendell Homes who said that you keep government\npoor and remain free. So while I'm not commenting on any specific\nbills, I can tell you that nothing has changed with regard to my\nphilosophy in this state, that this state should not suddenly think\nthat it is out of the deficit position that it can now afford to\nexpand the size of government at all.\n-7-\nQ.\nStill on taxes. Governor, when you say you are committed\nto an income tax reduction, that doesn't mean you are committed to\na rebate, it seems to me the last time we had a rebate we had to\nturn right around the next year or two and vote an enormous tax\nincrease.\nA.\nNo, I don't know of any enormous tax increase that we have\nhad following a rebate. We have had two rebates, one of them we had\nabout a hundred million dollars and we had a ten per cent rebate\nwith a ceiling on it that was imposed by the legislature. That was\na compromise to get that. The second one was with the passage of --\nof withholding, the one-time windfall, if you will remember, was\ndivided between some one-time capitol state projects and a 20 per cent\nrebate last year on the tax. Now, this would be a consideration\nin one of the alternatives with regard to a one-time surplus in\naddition to an on-going surplus as a way of returning that to the\npeople. And I -- again, I don't know the figures or what we are\ntalking about.\nO.\nGovernor, do you think it is feasible to impose gasoline\nrationing in southern California in order to reduce smog, as being\nconsidered by a federal agency?\nWell, I understand this federal agency is out here to\nhold hearings with -- well, you might say all of California, local\nchelons of government, people engaged in this fight just -- the\nordinary citizen, the private citizen, to get all the input they\ncan and I understood thatit was from the standpoint of finding out\nhow far our people are willing to go, whatprice are people willing\nto pay in an effort to help in the pollution fight. We will be\nvery interested in seeing all the information that they bring up.\nOur own task forces, of course, are going forward on this. It is\na:- domtinuing fight and I think that we are -- it's been a very\nintelligent fight so far, and one that holds out promise.\nI\nwould -- I couldn't comment on that as an advisable thing, I just\nwant to see what it is that they come up with and -- and we will\ncertainly give consideration to everything that is learned if it\nadds to the knowledge that we ourselves are gathering through our\ntask force.\nQ.\nJust one follow-up question, for several months your\noffice has gotten reports from your task force on period automobile\ninspection. You haven't taken a position yet on it, whether there\n-8-\nshould be periodic automobile inspection or not.\nA.\nThis again is a matter that has to come beforethe cabinet\nnow. There will be a cabinet presentation and it isn't -- it is\nscheduled butwe haven't had it yet.\nQ.\nGovernor, there's one bill that you might comment on\nthat's the marijuana bill that reduces penalties. What is your\ninclination towards that right now?\nA.\nWell, again I won't comment, George, on a specific bill.\nI'll just say that -- let me call attention to this fact. That\nCalifornia has been pretty enlightened. A lot of the talk about\nthe marijuana problem is based on a national situation. And a great\nmany people like Mr. Buckley the other night was surprised to learn\nthat in California we give the judges the -- the discretion. They\nhave the flexibility f deciding whether the case will be treated\nas a misdemeanor or a felony. And we also have in addition to that,\nwehave the right of family to turn in a member of the family who is\naddicted in any way without any fear of an arrest record and the\nperson can be then taken - rehabilitation and treatment and so forth\nin our various programs, but there is no fear of ever having an\narrest record hanging over them. And this -- as I say, puts I\nthink California in the enlightened forefront. But this will be\none of the bills that will be under consider ation this week.\nQ.\nGovernor, what kind of man are you looking for\nappointments to the Coastal Commissions and the regional and state\ncoastal commissions that were formed under Proposition 20?\nA.\nWell, we -- this is -- wehave met and had some discussions\nwith legislative leadership on this. We have a number of -- of\nnominees for this post. Wehave not gotten down with all the other\nthings going on yet to the final selection of anyone. But\nI'll stick with what I earlier said, that one of the first requisites\nisgoing to be common sense. This administration is pledged and\nhas been pledged to coastal protection. I happened to oppose\nProposition 20 because it was unnecessary. We have the -- all the\nstudies that are needed with regard to the coastline. They have\nbeen going on since 1967, and as I have described it, it is a stack\nof paper three feet high, and we ourselves were prepared to go before\nthe legislature with a plan for a coastal plan, and I think that 20,\nsai\nsaid before, has a great many unrealistic things in it and\ntherefore was opposed to it, but we will try to find someone that\n-9-\nbelieves both in the milosophy of common sense and at the same\ntime recognizes the need to continue the preservation of the beauty\nof thecoast.\nO.\nWould you favor what might be called a conservative\ninterpretation of Propesition 20 as opposed to a liberal one?\nA.\nWell, I don't know, once a bill of this kind is passed, I\ndontt know how do you conservatively treat with such things as\nwhether a fellow can add a bedroom to his house when he's a half\na mile from the ocean and behind a hill and not even in sight of the\nocean, and yet this is included in Proposition 20. And I know\nthat some cases are being brought in court about some points of that\nkind.\nQ.\nWhen do you expect to make your appointments?\nA.\nI don't know. What is the effective date?\nMR. MEESE: We have to make them by the 31st of\nDecember.\nA.\nWell, by the 31st of December. So it will be made before\nthen.\nQ.\nGovernor, back to the sales tax. Governor, what is the--\nwhat's the purpose of your California State Broadcast Service that\nyour office has just formed?\nA,\nY ou want to answer that, Ed?\nED GRAY: Well, Bob McCafferty has --\nO.\nThi is off camera, do you know about it, Governor?\nED GRAY: This is the broadcast service that is\nproviding actualities, recorded statements by various members of the\nexecutive branch.\nTHE GOVERNOR: Oh, yes. To --\nED GRAY: To madio stations.\nTHE GOVERNOR: I hadn't given it any formal name or\nanything.\nA.\nOh, it is just an effort to again let the people know\nthat factual statements on state programs, whatever they may be,\nare recorded and made available for radio broadcast.\nO.\nHow is it being funded, where does the budgeting come for\nthat program?\nA.\nThere isn't much budgeting to that.\nED GRAY: Regular part of the State Public Funds.\nA.\nPublic funds that almost every department has.\n-10-\nQ.\nYou have\nidea how much it will CC\nor\nwhat\nits\nprojected sost will be.\nMR. GRAY: No, --\nA.\nIt's got to be very minor, we don't have to pay the cast\nanything\nextra.\nPeople that do it, all it takes is a piece of\ntape and we got our own tape recorder.\nO.\nIs there any stipulation that stations that use these\nbroadcast are to label it ashaving emanated from your office?\nMR. GRAY: No more than any press release that anybody\ngets would be labeled as such.\nQ.\nAnd will the statements also be press releases?\nMR. GRAY: Probably, they are designed to compliment the\npress releases of the various departments and agencies.\nA.\nSo far the broadcast media has only gotten the press\nrelease and then they themselves, as you write it, they -- they\nthemselves have to put it into words. This way they will get the\nsame direct statements that you get. Here and then I go back over\nthere.\nQ.\nGovernor, I think you were quoted in U.P.I interview out\nat Phoenix that in spite of your agreement to go along with the\nSpeaker on SB 90 you had some reservation whether the schools actually\nneeded that much money. State Controller Flournoy the other day\nsaid in Los Angeles that they may need another tax increase next\nyear in order to properly fund schools to meet what seems to be an\nupcoming guiddine from the Supreme Court in Serrano. Would you\ncomment on Flournoy's statement?\nA.\nI think we are talking about two different things.\nFlournoy is talking about a possible decision with regard to where\nthe money for schools would come from. What I was talking about\nin the general discussion over in Phoenix was the matter of the\ncompromises that made SB 90 come about. And I was pointing out that\nnobody got everything they wanted in it, or it wouldn't be a\ncompromise. But I was pointing out that I -- for example, I have\nto say right now with this situation of the schools, the way they\nare, there is probably no question that they need the money that has\nbeeh made available and the increase that's been made available, but\nI still insist that if and when local school districts, not all\nof them, some are run verywell, -- but if and when the local school\ndistricts can actually review their own administrative policies I\nam convinced in my mind that they do not require all the money\n-11-\nthey are presently tting. And to blame the ack of quality\nin education in many of our school districts on the lack of funds\nis absolutely ridiculous, because some ofthe districts that are\nspending the most money are having the lowest quality in the --in\nthe finished product. And the fact that in two of our great\nmetropolitan areas one can be spending almost twice as much per\nstudent as the other metropolitan area is and not getting any better\neducation for it indicates that there is a great variance in the\nadministrative ability of the school districts.\nNow, what I would like to see is the continuing to\npursue and we have a task force on education with this. I don't\nwant the state to be able to impose on the school districts, I\nwant more autonomy at the local level, but perhaps the state can be\nhelpful in showing school districts where they can find these\nefficiencies and these savings as we find that they have been insti-\ntuted in some school districts. Then it would be my thought that\nthe local school district's inducement to institute these and reduce\nthe cost of schools would not be to save the state money. I am\ncommitted to the idea that the state continue to give the money that\nit has given but this could then further reduce the homeowwer's\ntax, the school property tax, as they lowered the cost of education.\nnd it is - it is just silly to say that there is any institution,\nwhether it is a bus iness concern or any departmentof government, that\ncannot constantly find areas for more saving and more fat that can\nbe trimmed.\nO.\nGovernor, just a follow-up question, if I might, please.\nIf, realizing that the Supreme Court actually has not come out\nwith an edict, it's been remanded back to a lower court, but assuming\nthat Serrano is the way things are heading and that there has to be\nan equalization among school districts and further if your income\ntax reduction, which you are now speaking of, taps part of the\nsurplus, would it not seem reasonable that to meet the Serrano\ndecision that you'd have to raise taxes to do that?\nA.\nWell, even if that should be true, there is one thing\nthat I also know, if you leave the surplus in government with the\nidea that some day it might be needed to implement the Serrano\ndecision, you'll still have to raise taxes if they handed down such a\ndecision, because it is absolutely counter to government --\ngovernment's nature to let that surplus sit unused. By the time\n-12-\nyou get to the Serra.o decision all of the surpius would have been\ncommitted to other on-going programs, various pets of special\ninterest groups and individual legislators and everybody will rub\neach other's back and the surplus will disappear. I would rather\ntake the chance of giving the surplus back to the people while you\ncan and then if something happens that forces a new program or a new\nincrease on government, then take your chance on having to pass it,\nbut at least in the meantime you will have kept government from\ngrowing in other departments up to a bigger size than it already is.\nAnd that's -- that's my whole thinking on this matter. I still\nsay that the Serrano idda has one great built-in fallacy, that I\ncannot beliefe this government or that the courts all the way to the\ntop court would ever let stand, that if you pursue it the way it has\nbeenvoiced so far you are putting a ceiling as well as a floor\nunder what local echelons of government cando. Now I will agree\nwith the philosophy of a floor which guarantees a basic good education\nand below which no child. should be educated. But for the life of\nme I cannot see what purpose would be served in saying if some\ndistrict wanted to tax itself extra and provide some luxury frills\nand ideas in education that they happened to belie ve in, and were\nwilling to do this, why the law at some higher level should say to\nthem that they could not do that.\nO.\nGovernor, it is not a question, is it, of willingness,\nit is a question of capability, isn't it? Baldwin park can't,\nBeverly Hills can't, so that inequity exists as long as the property--\nsuch valuations' in one district from --\nA.\nWe took a large step toward equalizing this with SB 90.\nWe have actually increased the proportion of state money that is\ngoing to the schools, and again as I say, I think before we start\ntalking about where are they going to find more money over and above\nthis, with incidentally a declining enrollment, not an increasing\nenrollment, then I think the question is to find out, as I said\nbefore, why are some school districts spending twice as much as others\nand not getting anything for it in the line of quality education.\nNothing. There is no ratio in this stat e or any other state between\nthe money spent and the quality of education, or the graduates\nof the educational system.\nO.\nThank you, Governor.\n-13-\nA.\nSay, Geor\nif you don't mind, I had old him I'd --\n0.\nEarlier you said when you spoke to the Speaker about the\nincome tax proposed cut, does this mean that is your intention, to\ndiscuss it, or negotiate it with Speaker Moretti? or what? Are\nyou just going to introduce it and let him come to you?\nA.\nI don't think we have just introduced anything without\ntalking not only to the Speaker and the President Pro Tem but to the\nto our own legislative leadership about what it is we are going to\npropose and we will follow that same pattern. I don't know whether\nyou are going to be as tough as Earl, but there's a couple of\nfrantic people here that are waving their hands. Can I take those\ntwo? No more. All right, you and then you.\nQ.\nGovernor Reagan, yesterday you made a speech to the Farm\nBureau concerning world trade and our deficit and balance of\npayments, and you said you hoped that other countries would reduce\ntheir tariff on our farm goods. Are you then going to ask the\nPresident to reduce the import tariff and quotas on oil and steel,\nautomobiles and manufactured goods, are you asking for free trade?\nA.\nWell, I think -- this has been a philosophy -- I think the\nPresident's and mine, for a long time. We realize that we are a\nLong way away with the variances and discrepancies between standards of\nliving in the world from actually being able to have free trade, but\nall of the president's negotiations and the efforts that Mr. Connally\nworked toward were aimed at a more free trade than we presentlyhave\nand I support him in that. I don't think it is a case of me having\nto ask the President, I think he's already embarked on that course and\nhe has my support.\nQ.\nBut he just added ten per cent to the tariff of everything\ncoming into the United States, how does that --\nA.\nWell, sometimes, you know, you have to kind of -- it is\nlike a mule thatyou got to hit him over the head with a club in order\nto get his attention and the discrimination, the quotas against so\nmany American products, you've got to establish a bargaining position\nbefore you can get the fellow on the other side to begin to see your\npoint. So I think that what he's doigg is not a change in\nphilosophy. I think it is just as it was with the devaluation of our\nmoney. It is to point out to them that they are the ones that\nhave been practicing the greatest restrictions on us and to show\nthat it is a two-way street, that we will -- if they are going to play\nthat game, we will have to play that game. But if they are willing\nto meet us on a free..g of the trade, that's the way we want to go.\nQ.\nWould you favor free trade with no tariffs?\nA.\nWell, I would favor it. But I thinkthat we have got to come\nmuch closer in the comparative standards of living of some of the\ncompeting countries before we can do that. And I -- and that's\na hopeful goal, I think all of us would like to see the day when\npay scales around the world were similar to what they are here and\nliving standards were the same. The last question.\nQ.\nGovernor, on taxes. Both the Speaker and Senator Moscone\nhave indicated they wouldn't vote for a tax cut unless there was some\nprovision for closing loopholes. Would you favor anything along\nthat line?\nA.\nWell, you know, it is so easy to talk about loopholes\nbut I have asked many times, and I've asked in this campaign and I\ncan ask you, what are the loopholes? Thiswhole -- this is part of\nthe political mythology and economic mythology that I mentioned a\nlittle while ago. It is awfully easy to talk about loopholes\nbut where are they? And what are theytalking about? Is it a\nloophole, for example, for you to be able to deduct your property\ntax/before you compute-your income tax? I don't think so, because\nmost people wouldn't be able to live in their own homes if they\ncouldn't have that break. Is it a loophole, for example, to\ndeduct part of your medical expenses? Now, the plain truth of\nthe matter is that mostof the people who have been making the most\nnoise about loopholes, if you go back and look at their writings,\ntheir speeches and their own conferences and their testimony in\ncommittee meetings, both here and in Washington, you will find that\nthe loopholes they are talking about are the legitimate deductions\ntaken by the working men and women of this country and without\nwhich they wouldn't be able to afford their income tax.\nQ.\nWill you consider reducing the sales tax instead of\nreducing the income tax?\nA.\nNo. For one reason, because I doubt even that our most\noptimistic survey of the amount of on-going surplus that could\npractically be applied to the sales tax without making a fraction\nof a cent cut in that tax, that would cost almost more to administer\nand would not really be an effective savings. No, the idea of the\nbreakage point below which the customer pays the full tax, even\nif only a fraction is owed, we have talked about that. We have\ninvestigated that in the past. The other tax, the income tax,\n-15-\nwhen it is a limited amount of money that you have in a surplus,\nit is one that lends itself best to where at least you can give an\n\"x\" per cent cut to the individual. But remember this, that begin-\nning in January everyone of us is going to take another look at your\npaycheck and you are going to see a great big bite out of that pay-\ncheck by a little matter of Social Security that was increased\nin Congress. Now, they increased the outgo so that it took place\nbefore election, but they increased your increased Social Security\ntax so it would take place after the election in January. But\nwhen that is added to the other bites that are coming out of the\ntax you are going to find that that has become a very healthy chunk\nand I just think, as I said before, that if we some way can do\nsomething that goes the other way and adds a few cents to that\npaycheck, I think we will be doing something very worthwile for the\ncitizen. 43 per cent is far and away too much for government to\ntake from the average individuals. You go to work -- when you\nstart to work in January, you will work into the first week in\nJune before you start working for yourself. That's how long it\ntakes you to pay the cost of government.\nGEORGE: Thank you, Governor.\no00\n-16-"
}