Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564322",
    "label": "Press Releases - 01/20/1972-01/31/1972",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564322"
}

{
    "id": "118564322",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564322",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Press Releases - 01/20/1972-01/31/1972",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564322",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Press Releases"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408623/40-840-7408623-P13-002-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408623/40-840-7408623-P13-002-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408623/40-840-7408623-P13-002-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564322",
    "naId": 118564322,
    "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/7408623/40-840-7408623-P13-002-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "7e7259dfeb352c7b",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Press Releases -\n01/20/1972-01/31/1972\nBox: P13\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNO\nRELEASE: Imm. diate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-20-72\n#30\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today appointed San Jose attorney George\nW. Bonney to the Santa Clara Judicial District Municipal Court.\nBonney, 49, a Republican, will receive an annual salary of $32,273.\nHe succeeds Judge John Dutton, who has retired.\nA partner in the San Jose firm of Rankin, Oneal, Center, Luckhardt,\nBonney, Marlais, Lund and Hinshaw since 1967, Bonney has practiced law\nin the San Jose area since 1962.\nHe is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin and earned his law\ndegree from the University's law school.\nBonney is a member of the Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission\nand is active in the American Bar Association, the State Bar of California\nthe Santa Clara County Bar Association, the Santa Clara County Trial\nLawyers Association and the Association of Defense Counsel of Northern\nCalifornia.\nHe and his wife, Kerminette, have three children. The family lives\nin Saratoga.\n#####\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNO\nRELEASE: I. ediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-20-72\n#31\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Ralph A. Nissen, a\nWilliams rancher and state agricultural leader, as chairman of the\nCalifornia Exposition and Fair Executive Committee.\nThe governor also reappointed Woodrow A. Miller and named\nRobert R. Gallaway of Sacramento to four-year terms on the committee.\nNissen, a member of the committee since 1968, has served as\nchairman since 1969. His address is P.O. Box 216, Williams.\nMiller, a Colton honey company owner and a consultant to three\nfederal Secretaries of Agriculture, has served on the committee since\n1967. He lives at 185 Laurel Street, Colton.\nGallaway, vice president of a Sacramento real estate and insurance\ncompany, will succeed Orval L. Bane of Reedley, who did not seek\nreappointment.\nGallaway lives at 1040 45th Street, Sacramento.\nAll three appointees are Republicans.\nExecutive committee members receive necessary expenses.\n#######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNO\nMEMO TO THE\nESS\nSacramento, California\nContact: Paul Beck\n445-4571\n1-20-72\nRemarks by the governor at the L.A.\nCounty Campaign Round-up Kickoff on\nSaturday, January 22, will be delivered\nat the Los Angeles Police Academy, 1800\nAcademy Road, Los Angeles, instead of\nthe Biltmore Hotel.\n# # #\nEJG\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN(\nMEMO TO THE P\nSS\nSacramento, California\nContact: Paul Beck\n445-4571\n1-21-72\n#32\nGOVERNOR'S SCHEDULE\nJanuary 24, 1972\nthrough\nJanuary 30, 1972\nMonday, January 24\nEvening\nSacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce\nAnnual Dinner, Senator Hotel. (Speech)\nOvernight - Sacramento\nTuesday, January 25\n11:30 a.m.\nPicture with American Legion Auxiliary Poppy\nChairman, Governor's Office.\n11:40 a.m.\nPresentation of Awards to \"VFW Voice of\nDemocracy Contest\" winners, Governor's\nOffice\nOvernight - Los Angeles\nWednesday, January 26\n10:00 a.m.\nPress Conference with young journalists from\nSan Gabriel Valley at Pasadena Star News,\n525 East Colorado Boulevard\nTrustees Meeting\nOvernight - Sacramento\nThursday, January 27\nOffice Appointments\nOvernight - Sacramento\nFriday, January 28\n11:55 a.m.\nYMCA Model Legislature, Room 4202, State\nCapitol. (Remarks - O&A)\nOvernight - Los Angeles\nSaturday, January 29\nNo Appointments Scheduled\nOvernight - Los Angeles\nSunday, January 30\nNo Appointments Scheduled\nOvernight - Sacramento\n# # #\nPB\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nRELEASE: 1 ediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-24-72\n#33\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today hailed President Nixon's program for\nbuilding a number of huge new Veterans' Administration hospitals in\nCalifornia. \"The efforts President Nixon is making to substantially\nexpand and improve our VA hospitals in California demonstrate his\ncontinuing concern for the medical care and treatment needs of the many\nveterans who live in our state, \" the governor said.\nThe President's budget submitted to Congress today, allocates\n$48.8 million for the construction of a new VA hospital at Wadsworth in\nLos Angeles, $33.5 million for a new VA facility at Loma Linda and\n$19.4 million for a new VA hospital in San Francisco.\nThe governor said that the Nixon administration also is requesting\n$9.9 million for the construction of additional VA nursing home care\nfacilities in Southern California.\nHe said another Veterans' Administration hospital in San Diego,\nbuilt at a cost of $38.5 million, will officially be dedicated March 15,\n1972.\n\"In addition to better meeting the medical needs of California\nveterans, these projects will provide new jobs and help breathe new life\ninto the state's economy,\" the governor said.\nNationally, the President's fiscal 1973 VA hospital construction\nprogram request is the largest of its kind in 21 years, the governor\nadded.\nThe new VA hospital at Wadsworth will replace an existing facility.\nPresident Nixon announced his decision to build the new Loma Linda\nVA hospital last August, It will replace the San Fernando Veterans'\nAdministration hospital which was damaged in the 1971 earthquake.\n# # #\nEJG\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-24-72\n#34\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the reappointments of\nMaurice J. Dahlem and George E. Kinsey to four-year terms on the board\nof the California Museum of Science and Industry.\nDahlem, an executive of a national accounting firm and a Los\nAngeles civic leader, has served on the board since 1970. He lives at\n2141 La Mesa Drive, Santa Monica.\nKinsey, a retired Los Angeles businessman, has served on the board\nsince 1956. He lives at 450 North Rossmore, Los Angeles.\nBoth men are Republicans.\nBoard members are entitled to necessary expenses.\n#####\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nRELEASE: ediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-24-72\n#35\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today appointed Earl Gagosian, San Diego\nbusiness leader, and landscape architects Kenneth K. Kammeyer of Corona\nand John Vogley of Oakland to the State Board of Landscape Architects\nin the Department of Consumer Affairs.\nGagosian, President and chairman of the board of Royal Inns of\nAmerica, will represent the public on the board while Kammeyer and Vogley\nwill represent architects.\nGagosian, 48, who worked his way up as a laborer for a motel chain,\nto found Royal Inns of America, lives at 9776 La Jolla Farms, La Jolla\nwith his wife Kay and their two children.\nKammeyer, who heads his own landscape architectural firm in Corona,\nis a former Corona Park Commissioner, a past president of the California\nAssociation of Landscape Contractors, a Fellow of the American Institute\nof Park Executives and is a former assistant professor of ornamental\nhorticulture at California State Polytechnic College. His home is at\n4020 Garretson Street, Corona.\nVogley, who operates his own firm at Pier 7, San Francisco, is a\nmember of the American Society of Landscape Architects and has served as\nan assistant professor and lecturer in landscape architecture at the\nUniversity of California at Berkeley. He lives at 2130 Mountain\nBoulevard, Oakland.\nAll three appointees are Republicans.\nBoard members serve four-year terms and are paid $25 per diem while\non official duty.\n######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nRELEASE:\nnediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-24-72\n#36\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today named John P. Starkey, president of a\nSan Diego mortgage company, to fill an unexpired term on the State Park\nand Recreation Commission and reappointed commissioners Lowell W. Berry\nof Oakland and Mrs. Clarice E. Gilchrist of Piedmont to four-year terms.\nStarkey, a San Diego civic leader, will fill the unexpired term of\nDaniel D. Villanueva who has resigned. The term ends in January, 1973.\nStarkey lives at 3115 McCall Street, San Diego.\nBerry, a retired Oakland businessman and civic leader, has served\non the commission since 1969. He lives at 5401 Broadway Terrace,\nOakland,\nMrs. Gilchrist, who lives at 25 Sea View Avenue, Piedmont, with her\nhusband Guy, has served on the commission since 1968. Her late husband,\nJoseph R. Knowland waschairman of the commission from 1956 to 1960.\nAll three are Republicans. Their appointments are subject to\nSenate confirmation.\nCommissioners receive necessary expenses,\n######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-24-72\n#37\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today appointed Edward H. Gauer of San\nFrancisco and reappointed George N. Keyston of San Mateo, to four-year\nterms on the board of the 1A District Agricultural Association (Cow\nPalace).\nGauer, a San Francisco civic leader and board chairman emeritus of\nRoos/Atkins, will succeed Walter T. Rodman of Woodside who has resigned.\nGauer lives at 2761 Scott Street, San Francisco.\nKeyston, a Burlingame businessman, has served on the board since\n1968. He lives at 441 Edgewood Road, San Mateo.\nBoth men are Republicans.\nBoard members are entitled to necessary expenses.\n#######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN.\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-24-72\n#38\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today named Mrs. Thaya M. Enloe of\n121 South Oregon Street, Dorris, to fill an unexpired term on the\nboard of the 10A District Agricultural Association (Tulelake-Butte\nValley Fair).\nMrs. Enloe, a secretary of the Butte Valley High School, will\nsucceed Robert T. Ryan of Dorris, who has resigned. His term ends\nin January, 1974.\nMrs. Enloe is a Republican.\nBoard members receive necessary expenses.\n#####\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-24-72\n#39\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced he has asked for the\nresignation of Kerry Mulligan, chairman of the California Water\nResources Control Board, because Mulligan has engaged in certain outside\nactivities which are \"incompatible with the responsibilities of an\nexecutive official of state government.\"\nThe governor took the action when he learned that Mulligan has\nserved as a consultant for a private engineering firm which has sought\ncontracts with public agencies outside California.\n\"Such a business relationship is incompatible with the\nresponsibilities of an executive official of state government, \" the\ngovernor said. \"It is the policy of this administration that the\nprofessional activities of such officials shall be limited to the\npublic duties and responsibilities of their office, Any compromise is\nunacceptable, \" he added.\nThe governor's action was taken irrespective of any allegations\nor evidence which may have been the basis for the issuance of warrants\nyesterday by Honolulu officials for Mulligan's arrest.\n\"I sincerely hope the criminal allegations themselves are untrue.\nIn any event, I believe the action I have taken is necessary and\nproper,\" Governor Reagan said.\n######\nEJG\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nSacramento, California\nMEMO TO THE PRESS\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-25-72\nJanuary 25, 1972\nAttributed to Governor's Office spokesman:\nBefore anyone is appointed to public office by the governor,\ntheir outside activities are thoroughly discussed with them to\ndetermine whether or not those activities might conceivably\nconflict with the appointee's responsibility and duty to protect\nthe public interest. In addition, all appointees are required to\ndivest themselves of any direct or indirect interest which might\nconflict with their official duties.\nThe clear intention and direct implication of these precautions\nare expected to be sufficiently explicit to prevent the appointees\nfrom subsequently engaging in such activities.\nHowever, after five years in office, the governor today\ndirected each Agency Secretary to once more go over the subject\nof outside activities and possible conflict of interest with each\nindividual appointee in their agency.\nIn addition, he has directed Agriculture and Services Agency\nSecretary Earl Coke to meet with representatives of the State Personnel\nBoard to review the current regulations governing outside activities\nof all state employees.\nState Department of is Lial Welfare\n#6-72\nSacramento, California\nContact: John A. Svahn\nJanuary 25, 1972\n445-2077\nState Social Welfare Director Robert B. Carleson today announced\nthe sharpest yearly December drop in California's welfare caseload in\nthirty years down 71,700 persons from December of 1970.\nHe said there were 2,189,480 on the state's welfare rolls in\nDecember, 1970, compared to only 2,117,732 persons receiving welfare\nlast month, the most dramatic reduction since December of 1941 when\nAmerica's involvement in World ar II shrunk California's welfare rolls\nby 200,000 under the December, 1940 level.\nCarleson, in a year-end review of the welfare picture in the state,\nsaid last month's total welfare caseload held virtually steady---only\n665 recipients more than the November caseload figure of 2,117,067. He\ncalled the increase \"infinitesimal,\" since it amounts to only three ten\nthousandths of one percent of the total number of persons on welfare in\nCalifornia.\nCarleson also noted that the total cost of welfare in California\nwent down by $1,121,798 between November and December from $163,187,200\nin November to $162,064,402 in December.\n\"We had anticipated this type of leveling off during the peak\nwinter months,' he said. \"Nevertheless, the ever-so-slight augmentation\nis infinitesimal when one recalls that the number of Californians on\nwelfare increased by some 60,000 persons between November and December\nof 1970 just a year ago.\"\nCarleson credited Governor Reagan's far-reaching welfare reform\nprogram- especially the administrative reforms which were implemented\nby his department during the year---with having enabled the state to\nbring welfare back under control during the last nine months of 1971.\nHe noted that until the reforms were put into effect, California's\nwelfare caseload was increasing at the staggering rate of 50,000 a month.\n\"Had welfare gone unreformed in California,\" \" he said, \"State Social\nWelfare Department projections show that there would now be nearly one\nhalf million (495,000) more persons on our welfare rolls than there\nactually are. The cost of the increase in caseload would have amounted\nto an additional $120 million burden on the taxpayers, he added.\nCarleson said the cumulative drop in the number of recipients on\nwelfare since March totals 176,000 largest yearly drop in postwar\nhistory in California.\nHe said, \"1971 will go down in history as the year California\nin\nthe face of tough odds and dire predictions that it couldn't be done\nbrought welfare back under control, without throwing in the towel and\ntossing the problem in the lap of the federal bureaucracy. A massive\nand costly federally controlled program is not the solution to the\nwelfare problem. Reform can and must be accomplished at the state level,\nand our reforms are pointing the way, Carleson said.\n#####\nState of California\nHuman Relations Agency\nunagement Information Systems\nJanuary 18, 1972\nPUBLIC ASSISTANCE CASELOADS AND EXPENDITURES\nDecember 1971\nRecipients\nPayments\nProgram\nDec. p/\nNov.\nDec.\nDec. p/\nNov.\nDec.\n1971\n1971\n1970\n1971\n1971\n1970\nGrand total\n2,117,732\n2,117,067\n2,189,480\n$162,064,402\n$163,187,200\n$159,759,311\nCash grant recipients\n2,062,131\n2,059,181\n2,088,495\n158,373,081\n159,391,917\n154,504,085\nGeneral home relief\n55,601\n57,886\n100,985\n3,691,321\n3,795,283\n5,255,226\nCASH GRANT PROGRAMS\nAverage monthly payments\n:\nAGED PERSONS (OAS)\n315,286\n315,462\n321,713\n$110.74\n$105.95\n$115.27\nBLIND PERSONS (AB/APSB)\n13,820\n13,940\n13,949\n155.83\n151.70\n160.64\nDISABLED PERSONS (ATD)\n190,778\n191,441\n184,889\n132.15\n129.33\n131.81\n-\nFAMILIES WITH\nDEPENDENT CHILDREN\nFamily groups (AFDC-FG) b/\nchildren\n907,721\n908,874\n888,064\n84.10\n87.32\n78.53\ncases\n386,465\n386,983\n363,989\n197.52\n205.08\n191.60\ntotal persons\n1,273,241\n1,273,253\n1,238,422\n59.95\n62.33\n56.31\nUnemployed cases (AFDC-U)\nchildren\n141,683\n139,780\n179,142\n82.85\n89.37\n78.27\ncases\n50,766\n50,131\n61,193\n231.24\n249.20\n229.14\ntotal persons\n235,490\n231,916\n295,628\n49.85\n53.87\n47.43\nBoarding Homes and\nInstitutions (AFDC-BHI):\nchildren\n33,516\n33,169\n33,894\n184.10\n178.44\n155.50\nGENERAL HOME RELIEF\nTotal persons\n55,601\n57,886\n100,985\n$ 66.39\n$ 65.56\n$ 52.04\nFamily cases\n2,459\n2,336\n14,492\n86.911\n80.65\n70.95\nPersons in family cases\n7,491\n7,353\n51,069\n28.53\n25.62\n20.13\nOne-person cases\n48,110\n50,533\n49,916\n72.28\n71.38\n84.68\nUnemployed in labor force (%)\n6.1\n5.9\n7.1\nXXX\nXXX\nXXX\n(Seasonally adjusted)\n(6.1)\n(6.2)\n(7.2)\nXXX\nXXX\nXXX\nCivilian population (excluding\nmilitary)\n20,117,000\n20,091,800\n19,833,500\nXXX\nXXX\nXXX\nal Cash grant averages for adult aids computed from \"net\" person counts.\nb/ Excludes U cases.\nPreliminary.\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNO..\nRELEASE: Inmediate\nSacramento, California\nContact: Paul Beck\n445-4571\n1-25-72\n#40\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced that 15,000 California\nmotorists with clean driving records have been rewarded with one-year\nextensions of their drivers licenses, and offered further extensions\nif they continue to drive safely.\nAnother 15,000 who recently had accidents or traffic convictions\nhave been offered drivers license extensions if they show clean driving\nrecords in the future.\n\"This good driver incentive plan\" the governor said \"may\ndrastically alter the concept that all drivers--good or bad--should\nhave their licenses renewed at standard intervals.\n\"If our pilot program with these 30,000 drivers works out as\nexpected, the Department of Motor Vehicles will be able to devote less\ntime to motorists who drive safely year after year, and concentrate\nmore thoroughly on the small percentage of problem drivers.\n\"Each year approximately 75 percent of California's driving\npopulation is not involved in an accident or convicted of a moving\ntraffic violation. Presently, there is no program in effect which\ngives recognition to the drivers who maintain these good records year\nafter year.\"\nLast year the California Legislature passed a resolution, authored\nby Senator Tom Carrell, which asked DMV to \"conduct a study of a safe\ndriving incentive plan under which the drivers license expiration date\nfor drivers with clear driving records would be extended without any\nexamination.\" The study will be a part of the Inter-Agency Highway\nSafety Program funded by the Federal Highway Administration.\nActing on the resolution, DMV randomly selected from its files\n15,000 motorists whose preceding one year records showed no accidents\nand no traffic convictions. Each was mailed a congratulatory letter\nand a certificate extending his driver's license for one year. Each\nletter also offered additional extensions to those who maintained clear\nrecords.\nAnother 15,000 letters were sent to selected motorists whose\ndriving records were less than perfect. These letters offer each\ndriver a one-year driver's license extension provided no reportable\naccidents or convictions enter his statewide record for a year.\n\"There is a good chance that the state can adopt a 'Good Driver\nIncentive Program' permanently, assuming that the selected motorists\nperform as expected,\" said DMV Director Robert C. Cozens.\nThe \"Good Driver Certificate\" is designed for the driver to carry\nwith his driver's license. Law enforcement officers have been alerted\nto the fact that the certificate is a valid extension of the matching\ndriver's license.\nThe legislature has asked for a report on the effectiveness of\nthe incentive plan by early 1974.\n# # #\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE: ediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-27-72\n#41\nThe following letter was received by the governor's office today\nfrom Jack Hatton, Chief of the Division of Industrial Safety.\n\"Dear Governor Reagan:\n\"On January 13, 1972, an announcement was made at the hearing held\nin Sacramento by the Assembly Select Committee on Industrial Safety,\nJack R. Fenton, Chairman, that I had informed your office of my offer\nto resign as Chief of the Division of Industrial Safety. At that time\nthe Divsion's operations were being severely criticized. Immediately\nprior to my announcement, I was called to your office and the Division's\nposition at the hearing was discussed in a meeting attended by Earl Coke,\nWilliam C. Hern and myself. As a result of the discussion, a decision\nwas made that I proceed to make the announcement.\n\"Since the time of my appointment, almost five years ago, it has been\na privilege and a real source of satisfaction to work in an administrative\ncapacity with this fine Division, which has an enviable nation-wide\nreputation. Within its ranks are some of the most capable safety\nengineers in the land.\n\"Since assuming this important post, I have tried to be ever mindful\nof the responsibilities of the job in preventing injuries to workmen\nwithin this vast state of some 400,000 places of employment and over\n8 million employees. Because of the combined efforts of management,\nlabor and government, assisted by the Division's staff, it is a pleasure\nto report to you that during your administration California's annual\nindustrial disabling injury rates have made new all-time lows. Further-\nmore, we are glad to report that the Division and the Industrial Safety\nBoard have revised or adopted a record number of safety orders and\nregulations during your administration. During 1970, as a result of the\nefforts of the Division's field engineers, more than 275,000 unsafe\nconditions were corrected within the state's industrial establishments.\nThese, Governor, are accomplishments we can all be proud of.\n\"I would also like to tell you that many members of the Division's\nsupervisory people and many of the field engineers as well as myself\nare not in agreement with the charges made against the Division during\nthe recent hearings.\n\"Unfortunately, prior to the hearing neither the Division supervisory\nstaff nor I were made aware by the Assembly Committee of the specific\ncases that were to be discussed. As a consequence, the Division's\nsupervisory people did not have an opportunity to review the files and\nfamiliarize themselves with the facts. Some of the ten or twelve cases\ndiscussed were several years old and could not be remembered in detail\nsince the Division conducts some 135,000 inspections per year. Hence,\nsome answers to specific questions posed by Committee members had to be\n\"I do not recall\" or \"I can't remember.\" Such responses were branded\nby the Committee as being evasive, which was not the case at all. The\nhearing would have been more fair and objective had the Assembly Committee\nadvised the Division administration of the specific cases that were to be\ndiscussed.\n\"However, in the final analysis, it is important that the Division's\noperations continue to be successful and that it receive the support it\nis entitled to. It is for this reason, Governor Reagan, that I restate\nmy offer to resign, if by so doing the Division will be helped.\nSincerely,\nJack Hatton,\nChief, Industrial Safety Division.\"\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNO\nRELEASE:\nImr\nliate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-27-72\n#42\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced he has accepted the\nresignation of Jack F. Hatton as chief of the Division of Industrial\nSafety in the Department of Industrial Relations.\nThe governor said he is asking Roy a. Bell, chief of the Division\nof Industrial Accidents during the past five years, to take over Hatton's\nduties as chief of the Division of Industrial Safety for the time being.\nIn his letter accepting Hatton's resignation, Governor Reagan said\nthe administration has \"been planning some management realignment of\nthe Department of Industrial Relations ever since the budget discussions\nlast fall.\n\"I accept your offer to resign so that the reorganization can begin\nimmediately,\" the governor said.\nHere is the text of Governor Reagan's letter to Hatton:\n\"I appreciate your letter of this date, explaining the circumstances\nsurrounding your offer to resign.\n\"As you know, we have been planning some management realignment of\nthe Department of Industrial Relations ever since the budget discussions\nlast fall. As submitted to the legislature, the final budget provides\nfor this realignment to be implemented beginning July 1.\n\"Under the circumstances, however, I feel we should begin the\nmanagement realignment immediately so no more time will be lost. The\nnecessary changes in the budget for the current year will be requested\nfrom the legislature when the current reviews are completed.\n\"Therefore, I accept your offer to resign so that the reorganization\ncan begin immediately.\n\"Thank you for your services and best wishes in the future, the\ngovernor said.\nThe two divisions Bell will direct deal specifically with industrial\nsafety. The Division of Industrial Accidents adjudicates claims following\nindustrial injuries. The Division of Industrial Safety emphasizes\naccident prevention, by adopting, inspecting and enforcing safety\nprocedures.\nBell, 60, was head of all safety, workmen's compensation and medical\nprograms for Hughes Aircraft Company from 1952 until he was named by the\ngovernor as chief of the Industrial Accident Division in January, 1967.\n- 1 -\n#42\nHe was west coast manager for the National Management Association\nfrom 1947-52.\nHe taught safety administration classes part time at Cal Tech's\nInstitute of Industrial Relations from 1962-65. He has been active in\nNational Safety Council affairs for the past 19 years and is a former\nchairman of the Aerospace Safety Committee of the Aerospace Industry.\nHe resides in Foster City.\nHatton, 64, was chief safety engineer for the Lockheed-California\nCompany before joining the administration in 1967.\n######\nEJG\nOFFICE OF THE GOVE OR\nRELEASE:\nImmediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-27-72\n#43\nThe following message from Governor Ronald Reagan today was\ndelivered to members of the California Congressional Delegation in\nWashington, D.C.\n\"Urgency of reopening West Coast ports is vital to economic well\nbeing of California's agriculture, industry and labor. Urge your support\nof immediate hearings on HJ Resolution 1025 which is needed to terminate\nthe immediate strike and to overcome interruptions of future foreign\ntrade.\n\"Export of California's agricultural products exceeds $550 million\nannually. Direct losses from 1971 West Coast dock strike approximated\n$23.8 million to California agriculture. Resumption of dock strike\nindicates agricultural export losses in direct costs will exceed $2\nmillion weekly.\n\"Continuation of strike will result in permanent loss of agricultural\nand industrial foreign markets, as well as incalculable losses to\nCalifornia labor force. In addition are indirect marketing costs which\nsubstantially add to total loss.\n\"Domestic market prices are depressed from additional supplies which\nnormally flow into foreign markets. Likewise, California is dependent\nupon imported materials used in production and processing.\n\"Please counter any efforts detected to delay or obstruct rapid\npassage of this bill. All Californians need it as soon as possible.\"\n#####\nEJG\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nRELEASE: ...mediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-28-72\n#44\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Clare W. Jones of Fresno\nand Ira J. Chrisman of Visalia to the California Water Commission,\nsubject to Senate confirmation.\nJones, a Firebaugh rancher, has served on the commission since\n1968 and Chrisman, a Visalia cattleman, has been a commissioner since\n1960.\nJones lives at 1045 West San Ramon Avenue, Fresno. He is a\nRepublican.\nChrisman, a Democrat, lives at 1300 Westcott Street, Visalia.\nCommissioners serve four-year terms and are paid necessary expenses\nand $50 per day while on official duty. Their salaries may not exceed\n$2,000 in any one fiscal year.\n#####\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nRELEASE: In ediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-28-72\n#45\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Robert E. Herdman, a\nSolvang rancher, to a four-year term on the California Highway\nCommission, subject to Senate confirmation.\nHerdman, who lives at 753 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang, has served\non the commission since 1968. He is a Republican.\nCommissioners receive necessary expenses.\n######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nRELEASE: In adiate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-28-72\n#46\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today named West Orange County Municipal\nJudge Lloyd E. Blanpied, Jr., to the Orange County Superior Court.\nJudge Blanpied, 48, will receive an annual salary of $35,080.\nHe succeeds Judge Howard Cameron, who has retired.\nAppointed to the West Orange County Judicial District Municipal\nCourt by Governor Reagan in 1969, Judge Blanpied previously practiced\nlaw in the Los Angeles area for 18 years.\nHe has been active in Orange County civic, legal and youth\norganizations and has served as a trustee of the Newport-Mesa Unified\nSchool District.\nA native of Los Angeles, Judge Blanpied is a graduate of the\nUniversity of California at Los Angeles and earned his law degree from\nStanford University.\nHe and his wife Orrilla have two children. The family home is\nat Newport Beach.\nJudge Blanpied is a Republican.\n######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nRELEASE: In adiate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-28-72\n#47\nDowney Municipal Judge William E. McGinley was appointed to the\nLos Angeles County Superior Court today by Governor Ronald Reagan.\nJudge McGinly, 45, a Republican, succeeds Judge H. Burton Noble,\nwho has retired. He will receive an annual salary of $35,080.\nNamed to the Downey Judicial District Municipal Court by Governor\nReagan in 1969, Judge McGinley previously served as a Los Angeles\nCounty Deputy District Attorney for 16 years.\nHe is a native of Los Angeles and earned his law degree from the\nUniversity of Southern California.\nHe and his wife Margaret have two children. The family home is\nin La Mirada.\n######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nRELEASE: I ediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-28-72\n#48\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced he has asked State Finance\nDirector Verne Orr to seek immediate approval from the Federal Pay\nBoard of state employee merit salary increases which were frozen during\nPresident Nixon's Phase I wage and price freeze.\nState employee merit salary adjustments which fell due during the\nfreeze---August 15 through November 13--could not be paid, by order of\nthe Federal Cost of Living Council. However, the increases have been\npaid since the end of Phase I.\nThe governor's action, if approved, would enable the state to pay\nretroactively merit salary adjustments which have not yet been provided\nfor the Phase I period.\nOrr noted that the state has, for many years, granted merit salary\nincreases for deserving employees. Most state positions are in steps\nand employees are entitled to five percent merit advances until the\ntop step of each position is reached, providing that satisfactory\nimproved skill within the position has been demonstrated.\nConcerning merit salary increases, the Phase I freeze affected only\nthose employees at less than the top step whose employment anniversary\ndate fell between August 15 and November 13, Orr said.\n#####\nEJG\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNO\nRELEASE: Im diate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-28-72\n#49\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today urged the legislature to memorialize\nCongress to settle the west coast dock strike immediately.\nThe governor also sent a telegram to Senator Alan Cranston urging\nhim to \"push\" legislation to settle the dock strike now.\n\"I am shocked at news reports quoting you as saying that dock strike\nsettlement legislation can be deferred for a month, \" the governor's\ntelegram said.\nThe wire to Cranston also said:\n\"This stike is costing all Californians millions of dollars every\nday in agricultural and industrial export business, as well as\nhamstringing those dependent upon imports.\n\"I am increasingly concerned with what seems to be your unconcern\nfor job providers in agriculture, business and industry. But I urge you\nto consider the plight of all working Californians, particularly those\nwhose jobs are directly and perhaps permanently being adversely affected.\nFor their sake, if for no other reason, please reconsider your position\nand push this legislation with all possible speed.\n\"Your constituents cannot afford further delay, \" the governor's\nwire concluded.\n/President\nIn another message, to Assembly Speaker Bob Moretti and Senate\nPro Tem James R. Mills, the governor said:\n\"All Californians are being severely hurt by the prolonged dock\nstrike. I have met separately with both parties to the dispute, but\ncould not persuade either of them.\n\"I asked the President to request congressional relief. He has\ndone SO.\n\"Senator Packwood and Congressman Quie have introduced companion\nresolutions designed to settle the dispute immediately. I have asked all\nof our Congressmen to support these resolutions.\n\"I urge you to memorialize the Congress as soon as possible, by\nwhatever joint, non-partisan action would be most effective, that the dock\nstrike is of vital concern to all of us, and its immediate settlement by\ncongressional resolution is our only hope for relief regardless of\nwhether or not the strike negotiations resume.\"\n######\nEJG\nOFFICE OF THE GOVER\nR\nMEMO TO THE RESS\nSacramento, California\nContact: Paul Beck\n445-4571\n1-28-72\n#50\nGOVERNOR'S SCHEDULE\nJanuary 31, 1972\nthrough\nFebruary 6, 1972\nMonday, January 31\nDepart for Washington, D.C.\nOvernight - Washington, D.C.\nTuesday, February 1\n10:00 a.m.\nTestimony before Senate Finance Committee re\nH.R. 1, Room 222, New Senate Office Building\nEvening\nDinner at The White House\nOvernight - Washington, D.C.\nWednesday, February 2\nReturn to Los Angeles\n7:30 p.m.\nNational Association of Professional Educators' ,\nDinner - Palladium. (Speech)\nOvernight - Sacramento\nThursday, February 3\nNo public appointments scheduled\nOvernight - Los Angeles\nFriday, February 4\n10:00 a.m.\nPRESS CONFERENCE - Century Plaza Hotel\n2:30 p.m.\nTaping of KNBC's \"News Conference\", NBC\nStudios, Burbank\nEvening\nCalifornia Newspaper Publishers Association\nAnnual Dinner, Century Plaza Hotel. (Remarks\nand 0 & A)\nOvernight - Los Angeles\nSaturday, February 5\n7:30 p.m.\nCalifornia Young Republicans' Convention,\nSheraton Palace Hotel, San Francisco\nOvernight - Sacramento\nSunday, February 6\nNo appointments scheduled\nOvernight - Sacramento\n# # #\nPB\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nRELEASE: 1 ediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-28-72\n#51\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today issued the following statement:\n\"Yesterday our representatives in Paris submitted an offer for\nsettlement of the tragically long war in Vietnam, an offer unique in the\nannals of international relations. Under its terms there is no victor,\nno vanquished, no vengeance, no retribution. The killing stops, men\nreturn to their homes and this nation turns its great capacity for\nbuilding to restoration of all the wartorn lands of Southeast Asia\nally and enemy alike.\n\"Those to whom this offer was made have heard the terms but they\nlisten for something else. They listen to hear if the people of America\naffirm that offer. If instead there is only the discordant babble\nthey have heard for so long then young men will go on fighting and dying.\n\"The American people must make themselves heard if they truly want\npeace.\n\"In this day of modern and instant communications, the opinions of\nthe American people in every village and city are constantly monitored\nby Hanoi. It is time for Hanoi to hear what the majority of the American\npeople truly think, rather than listening to individual, self-appointed\nspokesmen.\n\"I therefore urge the people of California to show the way. We can\ndo this by speaking through our various organizations, beginning with\nour political parties and including churches, service clubs, unions,\nschools, trade associations and governmental bodies at city, county and\nstate level.\n\"Let resolutions be passed urging North Vietnam to join in the\nproposed program for permanent peace in Southeast Asia. Let them know\nour nation is united behind this unselfish proposal. I am asking the\nSenate and the Assembly to pass such resolutions.\"\n#####\nEJG\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nRELEASE: Im. diate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-28-72\n#52\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointment of Los\nAngeles Municipal Court Judge Robert C. Nye to the Los Angeles County\nSuperior Court.\nJudge Nye, 51, a Republican, will receive an annual salary of\n$35,080. He succeeds Judge Beach Vasey, who has retired.\nAppointed to the Los Angeles Judicial District Municipal Court in\n1971 by Governor Reagan, Judge Nye had previously served for three years\nas a Los Angeles County Superior Court Commissioner.\nHe was also in the private practice of law in the Los Angeles area\nfor 15 years and served for five years as a prosecutor in the Los Angeles\nCity Attorney's office.\nA native of Los Angeles, Judge Nye is a graduate of Loyola University\nand earned his law degree from the University.\nHis home is in Los Angeles.\n#####\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNO\nRELEASE:\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n7 A.M.\nTUESDAY,\n445-4571\n1-31-72\nFebruary 1, 1972\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE.\n#53\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today made the following statement before\nthe Senate Finance Committee in Washington, D.C.\n(Also attached is additional material which the governor presented\nto the committee).\n\"Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity\nto testify here today---particularly since I have never before had this\nprivilege and honor---and also because I consider the welfare problem\nthe gravest domestic issue our Nation faces.\n\"Two years ago welfare was out of control nationally and California\nwas no exception. At that time HR 16311, and later HR 1, were presented\nas a solution to the problem. One of its authors responded publicly to a\ncritical question by answering that 'it's better than sitting on our hands\nand doing nothing.'\n\"I share the President's desire to reform welfare and certainly\nshare his belief that there should be a restoration of the work ethic.\nHowever, as you are aware, I have had some very serious reservations\nabout several of the approaches to welfare reform embodied in HR 1.\n\"In August 1970 I presented to this Committee a statement regarding\nthe version of HR 16311 which was pending before your Committee. Many\nof the provisions of that bill to which I objected in my statement are\nin HR 1.\n\"My remarks today will concentrate on 6 areas of major concern I\nhave with HR 1 and with the need for federal action in achieving real\nwelfare reform. I believe that:\n1. States are better equipped than the federal government to\nadminister effective welfare reforms if they are given broad authority\nto utilize administrative and policy discretion.\n2. A system of a guaranteed income, whatever it may be called,\nwould not be an effective reform of welfare, but would tend to create an\neven greater human problem.\n3. A limit should be set on the gross income a family can receive\nand still remain eligible for welfare benefits.\n- 1 -\n#53\n4.\nFor all those who are employable, a requirement be adopted\nthat work in the community be performed as a condition of eligibility for\nwelfare benefits without additional compensation.\n5. The greatest single problem in welfare today is the breakdown\nof family responsibility. Strong provision should be made to insure\nmaximum support from responsible absent parents.\n6. A simplified system of pensions should be established for the\nneedy aged, blind, and the totally and permanently disabled.\n\"In August of 1970 the size and cost of welfare had grown into a\nmonster which was devouring many of California's programs and was failing\nto meet the needs of those who, through no fault of their own, have\nnowhere else to turn but to government for subsistence. We didn't just\nbecome aware of this problem in 1970 but our earlier efforts to deal with\nit weren't too successful; perhaps because we relied on professional\nwelfare experts to propose solutions and all too often they were more\nfamiliar with what they were sure they could not do, so the situation\nbecame worse instead of better. Finally, to avert a fiscal and human\ndisaster, I asked several members of my administration, who had proven\nthemselves in other state administrative posts, to form a task force and\nto devote full time for as long as it took to see if and how real reform\nof welfare could be developed and implemented. They expanded their task\nforce to include experienced attorneys and other management and fiscal\nexperts from the private sector. These men and women served on a\nvolunteer basis for four months reviewing federal laws, state laws, and\nfederal and state regulations. They interviewed over 700 people involved\nin administering welfare in California at all levels, and developed\nproposals and ideas for a realistic and humane reform of welfare.\n\"In early March of 1971, not quite a year ago, we presented the\nlegislature with the most comprehensive proposal for welfare reform ever\nattempted in California and perhaps the nation. All in all, there were\nover 70 major points involving administrative, regulatory, and legislative\nchanges.\n\"We had already gone ahead in January with those changes we could\nmake administratively and we continued through the spring and summer until\nthe legislature finally agreed to most of the statutory changes we'd\nasked for, plus others which were negotiated,\n- 2 -\n#53\n\"It should be pointed out that we weren't exactly exploring\nuncharted land. Our task force findings had led to the conclusion that\nthe basic original structure of the welfare system was sound. It was\nbased on a concept of aid to the needy aged, the blind and disabled and\nto children deprived of parental support. Able-bodied adults were\nexpected to support themselves, their children and their aged parents\nto the extent of their capabilities. The system was meant to be\nadministered by the states and counties with the federal government\nsharing the cost.\n\"But we had also learned that, almost from the start, this basic\nstructure had been undermined, sometimes by federal or state law, but\nmore often by regulations, state and federal. Regulations drawn up by\nthe federal agency administering welfare reflected the philosophy of the\npermanent employees rather than an interpretation of the law. Thus the\noriginal legislative intent was often distorted.\n\"Back in January when we began, there were plenty of experts telling\nus that no state could reform welfare; that the statutory, regulatory\nand administrative constraints were too many and too inflexible. Figures\nnow indicate that they were wrong.\n\"According to HEW, national welfare and Medicaid costs combined\nincreased last year by 27 percent. In California, we estimate an increase\nin welfare and Medicaid costs of only 5.9 percent next year. And that\ndoesn't tell the full story of what has happened and is still happening\nbecause of our reforms. We suspect we may be playing it too safe.\n\"For several years up until last April, California's case load\nincreased more than 40,000 persons per month. This held true even when\nthe economy was booming and we had full employment. Our projections\nwere that by this last December we would have added another 495,000 to\nthe rolls. Not only did this not happen, but in December we had 176,000\nfewer welfare recipients than we had in March, 1971. In that nine month\nperiod we have reduced spending, federal, state and local, by more than\n$120,000,000 below what it would have been without the reform. Though\nthe December figure increased by a few hundred recipients, it was 60,000\nless than the increase in December of 1970, and the lowest December\nincrease in 30 years.\n- 3 -\n#53\n\"Because of these savings, we have achieved one of our primary\ngoals---we have been able to increase the grants to the truly needy.\nAn AFDC family of four, to cite an example, receiving $221 last spring\nnow receives $280 a month. A cost of living increase was granted in\nDecember to the aged, blind and disabled. In the current fiscal year,\nwe will spend $338,000,000 less in federal, state and county funds than\nwould have been necessary without the reform. In our 72-73 budget I\nmentioned a moment ago, we are asking for $708,000,000 less than would\nhave been required without reform.\n\"Let me stress once again---the important thing is we didn't find\nany new magic formula. We simply overhauled the present structurally\nsound welfare system. We insured adequate aid to the aged, the blind,\nthe disabled, and children who are deprived of parental support and\nreduced aid to the non-needy with realistic work incentives so that\nfunds could be redirected to the truly needy. Our program requires\nemployable recipients to accept work if offered, and that if jobs are\nnot available, to work in the community in order to remain eligible.\nAbsent fathers are now legally indebted to the county for benefits paid\nto their families with a provision for wage attachments and property\nliens, if necessary. Fiscal incentives are provided to help counties\ntrace absent fathers.\n\"But maybe most important is the fact that the California plan\nretains most of the administration and responsibility for an effective\nand efficient welfare program at the level closest to those who benefit\nand those who must pay the bill.\n\"Members of our task force found that with provision for reasonable\nadministrative discretion, combined with fiscal responsibility and\ndiscipline, the most effective administrative efforts in California\nwere those carried on in the medium and smaller sized counties. We\nretained the concept of state supervision and county administration of\nwelfare on a partnership basis.\n\"In spite of our reforms, many of the greatest loopholes which still\npermit abuse, inhibit effective state action, and which have led to a\nloss of public confidence, remain in federal law and federal regulations--\nmainly regulation. We see a fiscal and administrative disaster if the\nadministration of the welfare system is centralized here in Washington\nas proposed in HR 1. As you've already heard, HEW claims that HR 1\nwould save California $234,000,000. Actually, it would increase our\ncosts by nearly $100,000,000.\n- 4 -\n#53\n\"We are presently being challenged in court on nine of our eighty-\nfour changes on the grounds that we are in violation of federal law.\nRegardless of the outcome, we believe we are not in violation of\nCongressional intent before it was reinterpreted in regulations.\n\"To get back to the matter of HR 1, I respectfully urge this\nCommittee to eliminate the proposal to provide welfare benefits to intact\nfamilies with employed fathers. I am not unaware of nor insensitive to\nthe plight of the low earner but I believe relief to those families can\nbe provided in the form of Social Security and income tax exemptions.\nIt doesn't seem right to reduce a man's take-home pay with taxes and then\nsend him a government dole which robs him of the feeling of accomplishment\nand dignity which comes from providing for his family by his own efforts.\nBy the same token, we feel that the able-bodied recipient should be given\nthe maximum opportunity to support his family by doing work in his\ncommunity which will benefit the community. At the same time it develops\nand maintains his ability to perform effectively in a regular job when\nit becomes available. We don't suggest this in any punitive way nor are\nwe advocating useless make-work chores. Not only will the individual\nbenefit from participating in useful work, but those who foot the bill\nwill be more apt to approve if they see community services being\nperformed. If I could anticipate a possible question concerning the\nusefulness of such a community work force let me just mention one of the\nmany possibilities. The Los Angeles school system reported last week\nthat vandalism was costing that one city alone $50,000,000 a year. Night\nwatchmen might change that.\n\"I was pleased to see that the Talmadge Amendment to the tax bill\nwas adopted by Congress and signed into law by the President. Most of\nthe features of the Talmadge Amendment parallel very closely the\n\"separation of employables\" portion of our California welfare reform\nprogram. However, many of the so-called work incentives in the present\nsystem, and in HR 1 as passed by the House of Representatives, continue\nto insure aid to the non-needy, and able-bodied adults are not required\nto work in the community.\n\"We recommend that a realistic and absolute ceiling be placed on the\nincome that a family may have and still be eligible for welfare. The\nexperts tell us on one hand (and I believe them) that all but a few\nwelfare recipients would prefer to work if work or jobs were available.\n- 5 -\n#53\nYet, on the other hand, they tell us that we cannot expect someone to be\nwilling to take a job or go to work if his welfare grant is significantly\ndiminished. These expert opinions obviously are in conflict. I propose\na combination of work incentives including a mandatory work requirement\nand, in the case of a mother-headed family, reasonable child care expenses\nand a portion of her income could be exempted until she has stabilized\nher work situation. However, an absolute ceiling on the gross income\na family may receive and still be eligible for welfare should be set at\n150 percent of the standard of need. The proposed limitation of work\nrelated expenses contained in HR 1 should be retained.\n\"We believe that the present grant sharing ratio between the state\nand the federal government should be retained. However, since\neligibility of 85 percent of the caseload is due to an absent father,\nreal fiscal relief can be provided the states by helping them solve the\nproblem. We propose that the federal government adopt a plan similar to\nCalifornia's which would finance the effort to locate absent fathers and\nenforce compliance with child-support laws. The best source of funds\nwould be to permit the states or counties to retain 100 percent of the\nfederal share of grants recovered through collections from absent fathers\nand through efforts of fraud control units.\n\"I support the concept of a simplified system of pensions for the\nneedy aged, blind, and totally and permanently disabled. Sums of money\nspent on costly and complicated eligibility and grant determination systems\nfor these categories would be better spent in increasing benefits to these\npeople, many of whom have provided adequately for themselves during their\nproductive and working days, but who have found that inflation has wiped\nout the fruits of their past accomplishments.\n\"The effectiveness of the states' and counties' administration of\nwelfare has come under heavy criticism and attack. Perhaps in a number of\ninstances this may be justified. However, it is almost impossible to\nhold a state accountable for effective administrative practices and\npolicies under the present straight jacket of federal statutes, court\ninterpretations, regulations, and abuses of administrative discretion.\nGive the states the broadest authority to administer the system with proper\ngoals and objectives and then hold us accountable for our effectiveness\nin meeting these goals and objectives. Senator Curtis' approach in S-2037\nto severely constrain the power of federal administrators and return\nauthority to the states is definitely going in the right direction.\n- 6 -\n#53\n\"I am submitting at this time to you a more detailed listing of\namendments that we would offer to HR 1 and urge your favorable\nconsideration of them. They are the product of our experience with an\nactual reform program that is succeeding in California, they are not\ntheory. I believe that we have demonstrated in California that a\nresponsible approach to reform of the present welfare system is possible\nand that given tools, discretion, and adequate financial assistance,\nstates and counties are in the best position to provide a welfare system\npatterned to meet the real needs of those in America who, through no\nfault of their own, have nowhere else to turn but to government.\n\"What California has done--other states can do.\n\"Welfare needs a purpose to provide for the needy of course\nbut more than that, to salvage these our fellow citizens, to make them\nself-sustaining and as quickly as possible, independent of welfare.\nThere has been something terribly wrong with a program that grows ever\nlarger even when prosperity for everyone else is increasing.\n\"We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave\nwelfare, not by how many more are added.\n\"Thank you.\"\n#####\nEJG\n- 7 -\nADDENDUM NO. 1 TO\nTESTIMONY BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nBEFORE THE SENATE FINANCE\nCOMMITTEE FEBRUARY 1, 1972\nPROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION\nThe following legislative proposals for the U.S. Congress set forth problems\nin current federal law and proposed changes as related to public assistance.\nNo attempt has been undertaken in this listing to deal directly or exclusively\nwith those proposals found in HR-1.\nThe proposals pertain specifically to the following issues:\n1. State option for administration.\n2. Relief to low-income families\n3. Overall limit for AFDC family income.\n4. 30 and 1/3 disregard in AFDC.\n5. Work-related expenses.\n6. Community work program.\n7. Employables program.\n8. Sanctions imposed for refusal to work or train.\n9. Fiscal incentives for efficient management.\n10. Increased federal reimbursement for child support activities.\n11. District Attorney costs in enforcing family support.\nlla. Recipient's failure to cooperate with law enforcement agencies.\n11b. Federal participation in costs of District Attorney welfare fraud\ninvestigation and collection.\n12. Aliens on welfare.\n13. Fair hearings.\n14. The 18- to 21-year-old adult.\n15. Modification of statewideness requirement of social services.\n16. Vendor payments of non-recurring items of special need in AFDC.\n17. Simplified eligibility.\n18. Denial of AFDC where there is a continuing child-parent relationship\nwith non-related adult.\n19. Wage attachment for federal employees.\n20. Dependents for military personnel on welfare.\n21. Deny aid to strikers.\n22. Marital and community property resources.\n23. Confidentiality.\n1\nSTATE OPTION FOR ADMINISTRATION\nOBJECTIVE: To provide for a free, unimpeded choice by each State as to whether\nit wishes to provide for administration of public assistance programs by the\nState, designated local governmental units, or by the Federal government.\nDESCRIPTION: The federal statutes should be amended to provide the state\noptions as to the method of administration desired, without variable incentives\nconnected with the choices.\nPROBLEM: Most recent proposals for federal statute changes include strong fiscal\nincentives - or disincentives - in connection with various options as to which\ngovernmental unit should administer the welfare programs. These extraneous\ninfluences prevent an objective consideration of which level of government in a\nparticular state can provide the best and most efficient governmental service.\nCALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: California experience with local governmental units\nindicate that there are a number which are experienced, trained, with good\nmanagement leadership, which could assume full responsibility for administration\nand do a better job than either the State or Federal governments. On the other\nhand some counties may not be well-equipped for the job and should not administer\na program which could be better done by State agencies.\n2\nRELIEF TO LOW-INCOME FAMILIES\nOBJECTIVE: To improve the financial status of fully employed low-income\nfamilies.\nDESCRIPTION: Exempt low-income families from the federal and state income\ntax (including withholding) and provide them a rebate of their social security\ntaxes, including the employer's contribution thereto.\nPROBLEM: Many fully employed families work for compensation which is insuffi-\ncient to meet their minimum needs. This becomes more severe as the size of\nthe family increases. Because they are fully employed, they are ineligible\nfor the AFDC programs. Rather than create a new category of welfare recipients,\nit is proposed that the situation of such low-income families be improved by\nproviding automatic exemptions from state and federal income taxes and an\nautomatic rebate of social security taxes including the employer's contri-\nbution thereto. The solution concerning these families is to provide a better\nreturn for their efforts through such exemptions and rebates rather than place\nthem on public relief unrelated to their work efforts and productivity.\n3\nOVERALL LIMIT ON AFDC FAMILY INCOME\nOBJECTIVE: Establish reasonable fiscal controls, and limit eligibility\nto truly needy families according to a standard which can be accepted\nby the nonwelfare wage earner and taxpayer.\nDESCRIPTION: In determining \"eligibility\" (as differentiated from\n\"amount of aid paid\") apply a gross income limitation of 150% of the\nstate's standard of need. Anyone whose gross income exceeds 150% of\nthe need standard is not eligible and does not need \"work incentives.\"\nIf gross income is less than 150% of need, then the various exemptions\nand work incentives are applied to determine how much the aid payment\nshould be.\nPROBLEM: Earned income exemptions are available to recipients once\nthey become eligible for welfare. Thus, families already on public\nassistance end up remaining on welfare, even after the breadwinner\nsecures well-paid employment. This occurs because the first $30 and\n1/3 of any additional income plus all work-related expenses are exempted\nin determining continued welfare eligibility and size of the cash grant\nallowed. To correct this, an absolute limit should be placed on the\namount of gross spendable income a family may have and still remain on\npublic assistance. This limit should be 150% of the \"needs standard\"\nas set by state regulations. This will require an amendment to Social\nSecurity Act Section 402(a) (8) in order to place a realistic ceiling\non the amount of income a recipient may receive and still remain eligible\nfor welfare.\nCALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: In one agricultural California county a survey\nshowed 95 AFDC families with gross earned income ranging from $500\nto $1,344 per month, yet continuing eligible for public assistance\n3\n(Continued)\n-2-\nbecause of the various income exemptions. A more expanded five-county\nsurvey showed 84% of AFDC working families had income ranging from $401 -\n$1,334.41. California has requested a federal demonstration project in\norder to apply and evaluate the 150% policy, which was incorporated in\nthe California Welfare Reform Act of 1971.\n4\n30-1/3 INCOME DISREGARD IN AFDC\nOBJECTIVE: To modify the income disregard provision in AFDC.\nDESCRIPTION: Modify the $30 and 1/3 of the income disregard provision to\nbase the computations on net earnings after deductions rather than gross\nearnings as is now required. Incorporate the $30 into a standardized work\nrelated expense.\nPROBLEM: Section 402(a) (8) of the Social Security Act allows the exemption\neach month of the first $30 and 1/3 of the remaining gross earned income of\nan AFDC recipient in determining continued welfare eligibility and the amount\nof the grant. This law has been interpreted by federal regulations as requiring\nthis deduction to be made from \"gross\" income instead of from \"net\" income\n(after deduction of mandatory withhold items, work related and child care\nexpenses). This interpretation is one of the factors in the \"high income\"\nwelfare cases which keeps people in the caseload long after earnings exceed\nactual need. Section 402(a) (8) should be amended to expressly require this\nearned income deduction to be made from \"net\" income rather than \"gross\" income.\nCALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: Based on California grant standards utilizing the $30\nand 1/3 exemptions from gross income there results a possible continuation on\ngrant status (mother and 3 children) until the gross income exceeds $1,500 per\nmonth. This is by no definition a needv family. This interpretation was one\nof the direct causes of a 7-county suit challenging state welfare regulations\nlast year. In common with other states, California has no administrative\ndiscretion with respect to the application of AFDC earnings exemptions without\nrisking the withdrawal of federal financial participation in California's AFDC\nprogram. We find it impossible to defend to irate taxpayers a computational\nsystem which awards grants at these income levels.\n5\nWORK-RELATED EXPENSES\nOBJECTIVE: Establish a reasonable fiscal control and simplify administrative\nprocesses.\nDESCRIPTION: Provide a flat standard allowance of $50 to cover reasonable costs\nof employment, plus reasonable and necessary standard amounts for child care where\napplicable. Such allowances would be automatically allowed for earned income\nrecipients.\nPROBLEM: Social Security Act, Section 402(a) (7) and federal regulations allow\nan AFDC recipient to deduct hundreds of dollars of work-related expenses from gross\nincome in determining eligibility for public assistance. A policy of allowing all\nalleged costs of employment on an \"as paid\" basis requires an inordinate amount of\nadministrative time and excessive paperwork and, often, extensive verification\nprocedures. In addition, these become extra \"exemptions\" on top of the 30 and 1/3\nincentives already provided. Thus, the large amounts provided on an \"open ended\"\nbasis contribute to the number of very high income cases that also receive a public\nassistance grant. Federal law should provide a reasonable standard allowance for\nthis type of deduction, plus an allowance for child care.\nCALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: In the Welfare Reform Act of 1971 California established\na flat standard allowance of $50 to cover reasonable costs of employment. In\naddition, there was a provision to cover reasonable and necessary amounts for child\ncare. This standard was implemented for a short period. It has been challenged\nin the courts and temporarily enjoined as being in violation of the Federal law.\nThe injunction was issued on the basis that Federal law did not allow a standard\nfor work-related expenses.\n5 (Cont'd)\n- 2 -\nDuring the period that it was in effect, the standard significantly simplified\nthe administration of eligibility and grant calculation.\n6\nCOMMUNITY WORK PROGRAMS\nOBJECTIVE: To establish a community work requirement for those recipients\nwho are not working full time or participating in a work or training program.\nDESCRIPTION: To require employable AFDC recipients not working full time or\nparticipating in a work or training program, to work in essential community\nimprovement projects as a condition of receiving welfare; thus offering the\nrecipient an opportunity to develop a pattern of work experience and a personal\nwork history that may assist him in securing and holding a private or public\nsector job. Participation will not be required in excess of the amount of\nthe grant. In-kind necessary work expenses shall be provided.\nPROBLEM: Federal regulations have been interpreted as prohibiting federal\nfinancial participation in aid payments made to AFDC recipients who are\nrequired by state law to participate in a community work experience program,\nunless the program is part of the WIN program or administered under the\nEconomic Opportunity Act. Title IV of the Social Security Act should be\namended to expressly require federal financial participation in aid payments\nto recipients participating in such programs.\nCALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: California, by action of the Legislature, has designed\na demonstration community work experience program. President Nixon, in August\nof 1971 said he wanted to see put into effect the kind of broad-based demon-\nstration project we envisage. We are presently awaiting HEW approval of the\ndetails of our request for the project.\n7\nEMPLOYABLES PROGRAM\nOBJECTIVE: To place employable AFDC recipients into self-sustaining employ-\nment under a program which combines welfare social services and employment\nservices by distinguishing between employable and unemployable applicants and\nproviding them with extensive job-seeking assistance.\nDESCRIPTION: Provide a single organizational structure under the overall\ndirection of the state employment and manpower agency to resolve the special\nrequirements of employable welfare recipients; maximize communication between\nwelfare and employment services; and provide services required by the Social\nSecurity Act, to provide a full range of services stressing job information,\nplacement, development, training and search.\nPROBLEM: This program entails the cooperative effort of several agencies, e.g.,\nthe state welfare department, the county welfare departments, and the state\nemployment and manpower department, with the latter agency administering\nservices to certain AFDC recipients with emphasis placed on the furtherance\nof Section 402(a)(14) and (15) of the Social Security Act. It is difficult to\npromulgate such programs without securing waivers to the single-state agency\nrequirements. Legislation to ease implementation would prove most valuable\nand helpful to the furtherance of such programs.\nCALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: Nine months of an active \"employables program\" has\nbrought about significant results. In Ventura County, California's first\n\"employables\" county, approximately 40 percent of the employable recipients\nregistered with the employables unit left the rolls as a result of efforts\nof the unit.\n8\nSANCTIONS IMPOSED FOR REFUSAL TO WORK OR TRAIN\nOBJECTIVE: To establish clear sanctions for failure without good cause to search\nfor and accept employment or to participate in work and training programs\nafter certification (referral) to WIN.\nDESCRIPTION: Provide for clear, easy-to-administer sanctions for refusal to\nsearch for and accept employment or participate in work and training programs\nafter certification to WIN.\nPROBLEM: Federal law fails to provide effective sanctions for employable\nAFDC recipients who refuse, without good cause, to accept or participate in\nemployment or training programs after certification to WIN. The present\nsanction which requires a 60-day counseling program without the loss of\npublic assistance benefits for the offending individual, does not effectively\ndissuade such refusals.\nSocial Security Act, Sections 402 and 433 should be amended to expand the\nsanctions so that acceptance and participation in job search, work and training\nis thereby encouraged. Legislation should provide that a range of sanctions\ncould be imposed by the states including removal from public assistance for\na period of up to one year.\nCALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: In light of intensive WIN employment services, the\n60-day counseling period does not significantly increase the number of\nrecipients returning to WIN after a sanctionable act. In addition, the 60-day\nperiod makes administration of sanctions inefficient, costly and provides\nan additional opportunity for an unwilling recipient to avoid work and train-\ning. Such a recipient may voluntarily return to WIN after 59 days and sub-\nsequently refuse training only to start another 60-day period of counseling.\n9\nFISCAL INCENTIVES FOR EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT\nOBJECTIVE: Federal matching formulae providing incentives toward attainment of\ncertain goals, previously limited to assistance or service aspects, should be\nextended to provide for attaining a goal of simplified and more efficient\nmanagement.\nDESCRIPTION: Amend existing federal law, and build into any new law which\nauthorizes supplemental assistance programs by states, provision for higher\nfederal reimbursements in relation to decreasing administrative costs caused\nby demonstrable work simplification and simplified adminstration.\nPROBLEM: At no time has the federal government established incentives or\nmethods to evaluate management practices, nor to provide federal fiscal\nincentives for more efficient management and desirable work simplifications.\nCALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: California is convinced that a major part of the\nproblem in the growing maze of red tape and bureaucracy, and the faltering\ndelivery systems of assistance and services, is due to lack of attention\nto basic management techniques and failure to recruit trained management\nspecialists into a field dominated by professionally trained social workers\nwith little understanding or background in management.\n10\nIncreased Federal Reimbursement for Child Support Activities\nObjective:\nTo increase local effort and incentive for child support\nthrough increased federal reimbursement.\nDescription:\nToo many familes are on welfare because of the failure\nof parents, usually the absent father, to contribute\nto the support of the children.\nProblem:\nWhere a parent is capable of supporting his children,\nbut refuses to do so, his support obligation should be\nenforced. The taxpayer should not be forced to make up\nfor the capable parent's unwillingness to provide\nadequately for his own offspring.\nIncreased absent parent support activity at the county and\nstate level is necessary. At present, federal law (Section\n403(a)(3) of the Social Security Act) allows federal\nreimbursement of 50% of state costs in establishing\npaternity of AFDC children, locating absent parents, and\ncollecting support from them (Section 402 (a) (17), (18),\n(21), (22). No federal participation 18 available for\n\"preventive welfare\" where the collection effort removes\nthe family from the welfare rolls or prevents the family\nfrom ever needing welfare.\n10\n(Continued)\n2\nCalifornia Experience: In order to increase local collection efforts,\nCalifornia has developed the Support Enforcement\nIncentive Fund (W&IC Section 15200.1). This fund\nreturns to the counties 75% of the nonfederal\ncollections from absent parents which actually reduce\nthe welfare grant to the families. Since its\nimplementation on October 1, 1971, a number of\ncounties in California are actually showing a\nprofit on their county collection efforts.\nCalifornia's plan will definitely result in increased\nefforts, but more is necessary.\n1.\nThe Federal Government should give the states\nand counties a bonus to spur collection efforts.\nA federal support enforcement incentive should\nbe created to allow the state or local jurisdiction\nto retain money saved by its collection efforts--\nthat is the 50% federal participation in the\nwelfare grants.\n2.\nThe Federal Government should ease up participation\nrestrictions on child support activities and accord\nthe same priority as the items listed in Section\n402(a)(3)(A).\nObviously, it will never be possible to collect child support\nfrom 100% of absent fathers; some may be unemployed, deceased,\nunknown, or in prison. But certainly, with greatly improved\nenforcement and financial incentives, the percentage of\n10\n(Continued)\n3\nabsent fathers contributing to the support of their own\nchildren can be significantly increased and future\nnegligence deterred. Every dollar that is raised through\nthis source reduces the need for more taxes to pay for\nwelfare.\n11\nDISTRICT ATTORNEY COSTS IN ENFORCING FAMILY SUPPORT\nOBJECTIVE: To allow full costs of law enforcement agencies in enforcing\nfamily support.\nDESCRIPTION: Amend federal law to clarify the intent of Congress so that the\nrestrictions in federal regulations which limit federal reimbursement of local\nlaw enforcement agencies.\nPROBLEM: The Social Security Amendments of 1967 (PL 90-248) included\nprovisions requiring welfare agencies to enter into cooperative arrangements\nwith courts and law enforcement officials in relation to obtaining public\nassistance child support. These provisions included authorization for\nfederal financial participation in the costs incurred as a consequence of\nsuch cooperative arrangements. Despite the fact that the Statute (402 (a) (18)\nSocial Security Act) makes no mention of a required level of operation\nbefore federal sharing becomes available, federal regulations (45 CFR 220.61\n(f) (4) (v)) limit federal sharing to costs above the level of activity in\neffect prior to the enactment of the regulation. DHEW based their\n\"maintenance of effort\" provision on their reading of congressional intent\nas expressed in the Ways and Means Committee Report on H.R. 12080, particularly\nthe following:\n\"The Committee expects that this expenditure of federal funds will\nresult in increased effort to enforce the laws against desertion\nand nonsupport. The Committee also expects of the Department of\nHealth, Education, and Welfare extreme diligence in working out\nthe implementation of this provision to protect the federal funds\nand to assure maximum benefit from the money expended.\"\n11 (Cont'd)\n-2-\nA similar restriction does not exist if the activity is performed by the\nwelfare agency. There is a need for a clear expression of congressional\nintent that there will be federal reimbursement for all expenditures by\nthe district attorney and other law enforcement agencies in obtaining\nabsent parent child support. Such amendments would be made in Social\nSecurity Act Sections 402(a) (17) (A) and 402 (a) (18).\nlla\nRECIPIENT'S FAILURE TO COOPERATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES\nOBJECTIVE: To simplify, and make effective, a procedure to secure child support\ndue from an absent father without applying penalties against the children of a\nmother unwilling or unable to cooperate with law enforcement officers in locating\nthe absent parent to secure support.\nPROBLEM: Federal legislation is needed to provide for an alternative to remove\na recipient of AFDC from the welfare rolls for failure to cooperate with the\nDistrict Attorney in locating or naming an absent parent.\nSOLUTION: California has provided an alternative means of requiring cooperation.\nWelfare and Institutions Code Section 11350 makes the grant paid to the family\nof an absent parent a debt owed to the county by such parent, limited only by\nhis ability to pay at the time of creation of the debt. Because the debt is\nowed to the county, it may sue in its own name for recovery, and when necessary,\nsubpoena the recipient as a witness to answer such questions.\nRECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government should adopt the \"debt to the government\"\nconcept in all cases where welfare is paid because of a person's failure to\nsupport where he is liable for support. To avoid constitutional problems, the\namount of the debt should be limited by the ability to pay of the debtor at the\ntime the debt arises.\n11b\nFEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN COSTS OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY WELFARE FRAUD\nINVESTIGATION AND COLLECTION\nOBJECTIVE: To provide greater federal incentives and fiscal support to law\nenforcement agencies such as the district attorney for prosecuting fraud,\nrecovering funds fraudulantly obtained, and related legal actions in connection\nwith applicants and/or recipients of public assistance.\nPROBLEM: Presently there is no federal matching of funds for district attorney\ncosts incurred in prosecuting welfare fraud and recovering money fraudulantly\ntaken. Prosecution of fraud involves the same steps as recovery of child\nsupport intake, law enforcement and collections. The collection activities\nreturn federal money and consequently reduce the burden on taxpayers. The real\nkey is preventing the fraud from occurring.\nRECOMMENDATION\n1. The Federal Government should allow reimbursement of state costs of fraud\nprosecutions in the same priority as the items listed in Section 402 (a)(3)(A)\nof the Social Security Act.\n2. A Fraud Prevention Incentive Fund should be established that would return to\nthe counties any federal money collected in fraud prosecutions. The fund should\nnot be based on convictions, but should reflect actual funds collected.\n3. The Federal Statutory approach should not be based on convictions but on actual\nfunds lost due to fraud. HEW suggests that fraud exists in only 1% of the cases\nbased on convictions. However an actual case evaluation study done in California\nduring 1970 proved that fraud exists in at least 15% of the cases.\n12\nALIENS ON WELFARE\nOBJECTIVE: The support of citizens of other countries shall be a fiscal\nobligation of the federal government.\nDESCRIPTION: The federal government should assume full fiscal responsibility\nfor any welfare payments made to aliens. Federal government controls entry and\nshould finance the welfare benefits granted to aliens. Amendment of the various\npublic assistance programs is needed to produce this result.\nPROBLEM: The control of the entry of aliens into the United States is the\nresponsibility of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. The\nstates have no effective means of regulating the number of aliens who either\nlegally or illegally gain entry. Because the federal government controls\ntheir entry, the federal government should be required to fully finance welfare\nbenefits for any alien who becomes dependent upon public assistance. States should\nnot be required to support citizens of another country, when the state and county\ngovernments have no effective voice in determining admission standards. Federal\nlegislation will be required to have the federal government assume full fiscal\nresponsibility for any welfare payments made to aliens who reside in\nCalifornia.\nCALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: Some 107,269 illegal aliens, alone, were apprehended in\nCalifornia during the 1969-70 fiscal year. This accounts for one-third to one-\nhalf the national total. Many aliens find they can receive more in one month\non public welfare than they can by working for a year in their native country.\nAlso, the intrusion of aliens not on welfare into the labor pool tends to lower\nthe wage scale for farm labor generally and reduces the number of jobs which might\n-2-\n12 (Cont'd)\nnormally be available to welfare recipients and others with low incomes. The net\nresult is that many United States citizens, who are potentially self-supporting,\nmust seek welfare aid because they cannot compete for available unskilled\nemployment with aliens.\n13\nFAIR HEARINGS\nOBJECTIVE: To simplify administrative procedures leading to more prompt\ndecisions on legitimate appeals and fair hearings.\nDESCRIPTION: Amend the appropriate sections of the Social Security Act,\nto provide for an evidentiary hearing by a local welfare agency as a\nrequired preliminary to a hearing conducted by the state agency. Include\nthe specific criteria which determines under which circumstances it is\nproper to continue aid payments pending a decision in an appealed case.\nPROBLEM: Present regulatory provisions lead to gross abuse of the appeal\nprocess, and improperly waste exorbitant amounts of federal, state, and\ncounty, money being paid to ineligible recipients. Specific Congressional\ndirection, which protects the rights of applicants and recipients yet elim-\ninates the complex procedural problems which prevail, is badly needed. At\nthe present time, a public assistance applicant or recipient may request a\nfull fair hearing by a state referee after the occurrence of any county\naction with which he disagrees. Many of these problems could be settled\nwithout a formal fair hearing at the state level. To correct this situa-\ntion, it would be necessary to amend the fair hearing requirements in each\nof the Public Assistance Titles to permit states to meet these requirements\nthrough a two-step hearing process the first of which could be less than a\nfull-blown fair hearing but would meet the test of an evidentiary hearing\nin accordance with the Goldberg decision.\nCALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: Legal aid and federally funded poverty lawyers a-\nlong with California WRO have deliberately jammed the appeal process in\nCalifornia with thousands of requests for fair hearings. The result has\n-2-\n13 (Cont'd)\nhas been to continue payments to literally thousands of potentially in-\neligible persons whose cases are tied up in the backlog.\n14\nTHE 18- TO 21-YEAR-OLD ADULT\nOBJECTIVE: Limit the AFDC program to legally defined children.\nDESCRIPTION: Provide that in states where adulthood is recognized at the age\nof 18, such young adults may not be considered dependent children for purposes\nof the AFDC program, notwithstanding their relationship to an educational or\ntraining program.\nPROBLEM: At the present time federal law permits persons between the ages of\n18 and 21 to be defined by states as a dependent child for AFDC purposes.\nFederal law recently granted voting rights to persons 18 years of age and\nabove. States are beginning to recognize this age as the legal age of adult-\nhood, providing the rights, privileges, and responsibilities enjoyed by those\npersons who, in the past, were 21 years of age and older. The Aid to Families\nwith Dependent Children program is a program for children. The limited resources\navailable for this program should be limited to those persons who have been\ndefined legally as children in order to maximize protection and benefits. If\nit is found desirable to provide assistance to young adults who wish to receive\nfurther education or training, provision of such assistance should be handled\nthrough educational and manpower programs where a wide variety of opportunities\ncould be reviewed and utilized, including loans, work training, work education,\nand other adult oriented programs.\nCALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: The California State Legislature in late 1971 adopted\nthe statute recognizing the age 18 instead of the age 21 as the age of adult-\nhood. Virtually all California statutes including those governing welfare have\nbeen changed to read age 18 instead of age 21. Therefore, when this law becomes\neffective March 4, 1972, persons over the age of 18 will no longer be eligible\nfor AFDC assistance as a dependent child.\n15\nMODIFY STATEWIDENESS REQUIREMENTS OF SOCIAL SERVICES\nOBJECTIVE: Expressly recognize the wide variation within a state as to the\nneeds for social services, and the resources available within communities to\nmeet such needs. To enable better allocation of tax resources, the concept\nof \"statewideness\" must be altered to permit greater flexibility in estab-\nlishing and providing social services in the areas of greatest need.\nDESCRIPTION: Amend the Social Security Act to clearly permit a state to\nprovide social services in such counties, areas, or districts, as the states\nor counties deem necessary.\nPROBLEM: The statewideness concept has some validity when applied to assis-\ntance payments financed by two or three levels of government, and where it is\nrealistically possible to provide uniform statewide application of require-\nments.\nDecreeing a statewide requirement and standards for a variety of services\nrequiring a high degree of education and training, is an exercise in futility\nbecause of the great variation in local attitudes, the actual need for the\nservices, the trained personnel, the availability of housing, cultural interests,\nand all of the same problems which prevent extending adequate health care into\nevery area of a state. Allocation of limited resources to areas of greatest\nneed, or where the most productive use of services would occur, would better\nserve the taxpayer and recipient alike.\n16\nVENDOR PAYMENTS FOR NON-RECURRING ITEMS\nOF SPECIAL NEED IN AFDC\nOBJECTIVE: To assure that placement of destroyed or stolen household appliances\nessential to decent and healthful living can be provided promptly in the most\nefficient method.\nDESCRIPTION: Amend the Social Security Act to provide appropriate exceptions\nto the \"money payment\" principle.\nPROBLEM: Situations often arise when a relatively large one time expenditure is\nnecessary for such essential items as 8. refrigerator or washing machine. At\npresent because of matching requirements, grant limitations, and the money payment\nrequirement, recipients are almost always forced into a purchase arrangement\ncovering several months at high interest rates.\nIt would be more efficient and better for the recipient if the money payment\nprinciple were waived in these situations and the agency permitted to pay a\nvendor directly for the full cost, with such cost reported on claims as an\nassistance payment eligible for federal matching.\nCALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: California has found that requiring the money to be\npaid directly to the recipient involves extensive accounting and case control\nprocedures, red tape, and unnecessary paper work thereby increasing costs\nwhile at the same time causing needless expenditures by the recipient. This\ncould all be avoided through authorizing appropriate exceptions to the money\npayment requirements.\n17\nSIMPLIFIED ELIGIBILITY\nOBJECTIVE: To achieve reliability of determinations of eligibility and\nestablish more control over that process.\nDESCRIPTION: The requirements in the various titles governing \"proper and\nefficient administration\" should be revised so as to make the use of \"simplified\nmethods\" in determining eligibility optional rather than mandatory with the\nstates.\nPROBLEM: Social Security Act Section 2 (a) (5) (A) (old age assistance and\nmedical assistance for the aged); Title 4, Section 402 (a) (5) (A) (aid and\nservices to needy families with children and child welfare services); Title 10,\nSection 1002 (a) (5) (A) (Aid to the Blind); and Title 14, Section 1402 (a) (5) (A)\n(aid to the permanently and totally disabled) of the Social Security Act each\nprovide in part that:\n\"A state plan for (categorical aid stated) must\nprovide such methods of administration as are found by\nthe secretary to be necessary for the proper and efficient\noperation of the plan,\n\"\nThe secretary has implemented these sections in part to provide for a declaration\nprocess by which the states would be required to accept the statements of\napplicants or recipients as conclusive in determining eligibility. The potential\nfor mistakes and misrepresentations in such a system is obvious and has been\ndocumented in a report recently released by the secretary.\nCALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: A Grand Jury report of one county's experience with\nthis system is replete with incidents revealing the abuses and consequent loss\nof public confidence and funds as a result of this method. One woman with no\nchildren was able to obtain AFDC in five different offices in that county.\n18\nDENIAL OF AFDC WHERE THERE IS A CONTINUING CHILD-PARENT\nREIATIONSHIP WITH NONRELATED ADULT\nOBJECTIVE: Prevent aid going to a child on the basis of his being deprived\nof support or care because of the continuing absence of a parent when the\nchild has in fact a continuing parent-child relationship with a non-related\nadult including a step-parent.\nDESCRIPTION: Permit a state to deny aid to a child where the child is living\nin a parent-child relationship with a nonrelative adult, e.g., child whose\nfather/mother has deserted and where child is living with his father/mother\nand his/her unmarried partner (MARS).\nPROBLEM: Section 406 of the Social Security Act currently provides that a\nchild who is deprived of the presence of one parent is a \"dependent child\"\nfor AFDC purposes; notwithstanding the fact that another person who is not\na relative of the child has taken over the role of parent and provides the\ncare and support normally provided by the absent parent or relative.\nProposed changes in 406 would provide that when a nonrelated adult assumes\nthe role of parent the child shall not be considered deprived nor a\n\"dependent child\" within the federal definition.\n19\nWAGE ATTACHMENT FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES\nOBJECTIVE: To allow attachment of wages of federal employees including the\nmilitary.\nDESCRIPTION: Remove current restrictions in federal law which prevent attachments\nand garnishments of the wages of federal employees (including the armed services)\nto increase the collection of absent parent child support funds and thereby reduce\npublic assistance support.\nPROBLEM: The doctrine of sovereign immunity effectively precludes local government\nfrom attachment, garnishment, execution and wage assignments against wages of\nfederal employees, retired federal employees and members of the military.\nIndividuals employed by the federal government are thus provided a shelter not\nenjoyed by employees of other organizational entities.\nIn California, the problem of collecting child support payments from federal\nemployees and members of the military is particularly acute because of the\nmany military installations and the large number of federal employees.\nThe nature of the nonsupporting parents' employment should not be a barrier to\nenforcing his basic moral and legal obligation to support his children. Federal\nlegislation is needed to correct this inequity.\nCALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: Federal employees are exempt from wage attachments even\nthough they are no longer so poorly paid they need such an exemption. In\naddition to the large military population in California, there are also large\nnumbers of divorced fathers with child support obligations working for the\nfederal government. Again, since their wages are untouchable, there are larger\nnumbers that could be expected who refuse to acknowledge the court order or pay\nsupport. They legally cannot be touched now even though we know who and where\nthey are and that their wage is adequate to make ordered payments.\n20\nDEPENDENTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL ON WELFARE\nOBJECTIVE: Eliminate the inefficient and inappropriate inclusion of\nfamilies of military personnel among those eligible for public assistance\npayments.\nDESCRIPTION: Require through appropriate Congressional action that the\nneeds of all bona fide dependents of military personnel are handled through\nthe Department of Defense or other designated federal agency. This would\nnot preclude, if an assistance payment is needed, for the federal agency\nto contract with a state or local governmental public welfare agency to\nprovide appropriate service and investigative facilities in selected cases.\nPROBLEM: Present federal regulations are so loosely drawn that thousands\nof dependents of military personnel are eligible for public assistance,\nforcing state and local tax payers to subsidize what is essentially a\nfederal problem, and imposing unnecessary and duplicative administrative\nefforts by two or more difficult agencies.\nCALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: California is facing court challenges to its posi-\ntion denying aid to families of service men. Plaintiffs allege, under the\nSocial Security Act, that children of military personnel who are absent\nfrom the family are \"deprived of parental support\" by reason of the \"ab-\nsence from the home\" of the father. Thus what was intended as a provision\nto help families deserted by the principal breadwinner is being subverted\nbecause of lack of specifity in the federal requirements.\n21\nDENY AID TO STRIKERS\nOBJECTIVE: To eliminate the use of public assistance as a \"strike fund\" by\nunions.\nDESCRIPTION: States should be directed to deny aid to strikers. Any persons\nsubsequently unemployed because of a lock-out by an employer should not be denied\naid.\nPROBLEM: In considering the resources available, a labor union includes the\nfunds from public assistance sources. This substantially bolsters the financial\nability of the union and its ability to prolong a strike. The effect is to place\nthe public assistance agency on one side of a management labor dispute. We\nbelieve this is unsound public policy. It further causes a conflict in that\nunemployment insurance benefits are not payable to a striker, but public assistance\nis. Two agencies of government look at the same individual and simultaneously\ndeclare him to be employed and unemployed concurrently.\nCurrent federal law is entirely silent on this matter, and as presently interpreted\ndoes not preclude a state from having an approved plan which denied aid to strikers.\nHowever, this issue has recently been raised through litigation in a state that\ndoes deny aid to strikers.\nA clear statement of public policy in this regard is required of the Congress in\norder to support this principle and avoid litigation. For this reason a new\nclause should be added to Part A of Title IV, Social Security Act that would\nrequire as a condition for plan approval the denial of aid to strikers.\nCALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: The first day of a strike finds an immediate surge in\napplications for both public assistance and food stamps at the adjacent welfare\noffices. The strikers have been well briefed by the union staff as to application,\n21 (Cont'd)\n-2-\nhow, when, and where to apply; how much to expect, and when. The case loads\ncontinue to increase during the strike period until all eligibles are on the\npublic assistance rolls. At the end of the strike, the reverse is not true.\nBecause of income exemptions, work expense deductions, etc., many of the lower\nincome persons remain on the welfare rolls indefinitely.\n22\nMARITAL AND COMMUNITY PROPERTY RESOURCES\nOBJECTIVE: Denial of AFDC Where There Are Sufficient Resources to Meet the\nNeeds of Recipients Due to the Income of a Non-Adoptive Stepparent. Require\na stepparent to be responsible for the support of all the children in his\nmarital community.\nDESCRIPTION: Allow a state to consider the income of a non-adoptive step-\nparent in determining eligibility for and the amount of grants of AFDC to the\nnon-adopted stepchildren.\nPROBLEM: Current federal regulations provide that a state, in determining\neligibility and the amount of the grant, may consider only the income of the\nchild's natural or adoptive parent absent actual proven contributions by a\nstepparent (except stepparents' income may be considered in states where step-\nparents have a general legal obligation to support their non-adopted step-\nchildren); not withstanding the reality that, in a family which includes a\nstepparent, all the income of adult family members is generally used to support\nall the family members.\nProposed changes would provide:\na) that in family groups living together, income of the spouse is considered\navailable for his spouse. Since federal regulations require that income\nof a natural parent be considered available to children, 45 CFR Sec. 233.90(a),\nit would then follow that the income of a spouse would be considered\navailable to all the family's children for eligibility and grant deter-\nmination.\nb) that, where natural parents have vested interest in the [right to manage\nand control of] income of their spouses, that portion vested in/under the\n22 (Cont'd)\n-2-\nmanagement and control of] the natural parent could be considered available\nto that parent's children for eligibility and grant determination.\n23\nCONFIDENTIALITY\nOBJECTIVE: Broaden availability of public assistance records to other public\nagencies for any legitimate public purpose.\nDESCRIPTION: Legislation is needed to provide that such records are avail-\nable to all public authorities for any legitimate public purpose, and to\neliminate impediments to cross-checking with state and federal tax authorities.\nTo accomplish this Social Security Act Sections 2(a)(7), 402(a)(9), 1402(a)(9),\nand 1602(a)(7) would have to be amended.\nPROBLEM: The current federal law on confidentiality, by restricting the use\nor disclosure of information concerning applicants and recipients only to\npurposes directly connected with the administration of public assistance\nimpedes proper control and safeguards in the administration of public assis-\ntance.\nCALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: This has resulted in recipients receiving aid in more\nthan one county at a single time and in more than one state at the same time.\nFurther, the inability to cross-check with the Internal Revenue Service has\nprohibited a realistic check of the income earned by welfare recipients.\nAddendum No. 2 - Testimony by Governor Ronald Reagan Before\nThe Senate Finance Committee February 1, 1972\nH.R. 1 Analysis - Oppose\nThe following provisions are those major provi-\nsions in H.R. 1 which are opposed by California.\nIncluded in this package are suggestions for\namendment. There are other less significant\nprovisions which may also be opposed to by\nCalifornia but which have not been included in\nthis analysis.\nOPPOSE\nFEATURE\nPOSITION AND AMENDMENTS\n1.\nFederalization\nUnder the present system the Federal Government\nWelfare reform can best be accomplished within the present\nreimburses State for a percentage of the costs of\nstructure of shared Federal/State responsibilities.\naid payments and the cost of administering such\npayments. States are assured of this federal\nFederalization of the payments programs will mean the creation\nfinancial participation so long as they meet the\nof a greatly enlarged federal bureaucracy, inherently less able\nstatutory requirements of the public assistance\nto meet the needs of the people than the current State/Federal\nstatutes.\npartnership. The difficulty in administering the present welfare\nsystem at the state level is due in large part to complex and\nUnder H.R. 1, the State/Federal balance would be\ncontradictory federal regulations and to the constant\ndestroyed, and there would be no federal financial\n\"reinterpretation\" of those regulations by HEW staff members, but\nreimbursement to States for any public assistance\nat least now there is a check-and-balance system resulting from\npayments. Instead, the Federal Government would\nthe fiscal sharing of states with the Federal Government, and in\ndirectly administer federal benefit programs to\nCalifornia of county sharing as well. This sharing of fiscal\nfamilies, and to aged, blind, and disabled persons.\nresponsibility and its implicit sharing of program responsibility\nThe Federal Government would pay the total cost of\nhas been the deciding incentive to welfare reform in California.\nsuch programs including costs of administration.\nIn addition to creating a massive federal bureaucracy, H.R. l\nStates, such as California, would be virtually\nforces states like California, that have attempted to administer\nrequired to make supplemental aid payments, but\nequitable welfare programs, to turn their programs and their\nwould face greatly increased costs unless they\nmoney over to the Federal Government. While there is a \"technical\"\nagree to federal administration of the State's\nchoice as to whether or not a given state manages its own\nprogram.\nsupplemental program, realistically there is no choice, since\nself-management will cause greatly increased costs to any state.\nSpecifically:\nThe Federal Government is practicing fiscal blackmail to require the\nstates to relinquish their responsibilities and their control.\na. The bill provides that State or local assist-\nA system conceived in such deceit cannot be in the interests of\nance regularly received by persons covered by\nthe people--either taxpayers or recipients.\nthe federal benefit programs would be\nconsidered as \"income\" in computing the federal\nbenefit unless such assistance is provided\nunder an agreement with HEW.\nOPPOSE, Page 2\nFEATURE\nPOSITION AND AMENDMENTS\nFederalization (continued)\nb. If a State elects to administer its State\nProposal 1. State option for administration\nsupplemental programs, it would not be covered\nby the \"hold-harmless\" provisions of the bill\nProposal 9. Federal fiscal incentive for efficient operation\ndesigned to protect States against future increase\nin welfare costs.\nC. Under amendments to the current law which would be\neffective upon enactment of H.R. 1, the Secretary\nof HEW could:\n- Require retroactive payments from the State to\nrecipients affected by the State's failure to\nmake payments in accord with federal dictates.\n- Prescribe administrative methods for correcting\na State's noncompliance with federal requirements.\n- Request U.S. Attorney General to bring suit\nagainst the State to force compliance in\naddition to or instead of withholding federal\nreimbursement.\nd. The bill contains a virtual mandate on States with\npresent levels above the new federal benefit levels\nto maintain present payment levels plus the bonus\nvalue of food stamps.\n2. Guaranteed Welfare Income\nThe bill creates a national welfare system with\nIt is commonly understood that a government guaranteed\nguaranteed income. It assures that every family with\nincome, not based upon individual productivity, is a giant\nincome below a certain amount will receive a govern-\nstep toward a welfare state, with its inherent loss of\nment payment sufficient to bring its income up to that\nindividual identity and pride. Some argue this is not a\namount.\n\"guaranteed income\" because employable family members must\ncooperate with work and training requirements. This argument\nis fallacious, since family income would be reduced only by\nOPPOSE, Page 3\nFEATURE\nPOSITION AND AMENDMENTS\n2. Guaranteed Welfare Income (continued)\nthe uncooperative member's share. In the words of\nDaniel P. Moynihan, the bill provides a minimum income to\nevery family \"united or not, working or not, deserving or\nnot\". There should be a minimum national standard to support\nthose unable to take care of themselves, but not a government-\nguaranteed income to all families.\nProposal 2. Relief to low income families\n3. Income and Property Disregards\nEmployed families would be allowed to deduct from\nThis feature continues the inequities of the present system\ntheir annual earnings at least the first $720,\nin which welfare families can earn over $1000 gross income in\n\"reasonable\" costs of child care, and 1/3 of the\nCalifornia and still receive the same welfare payment as the\nbalance of earnings, before the amount of the welfare\nfamily with no income. A limit on gross income should be set\nbenefit is determined.\nabove which a family would not be eligible for welfare.\nAged, blind, or disabled individuals or families could\nThis limit is too high and should be set at a figure\nhave up to $1,500 in cash or other liquid assets to\nmore consistent with emergency needs, taking into account\nmeet emergencies and still be eligible to receive\nthe availability of free medical and other services.\nbenefits.\nConsideration should be given to the method we have proposed\nin California under which recipients with special needs are\nrequired to \"spend down\" a proportion of their allowable\nemergency resources before any allowance for special needs\nis made.\nThe bill provides that the value of a home \"as deemed\nIt would be desirable to give the Secretary discretion to\nreasonable by the Secretary\" is to be excluded in\nrecognize regional differences in property values. However,\ndeterming countable resources subject to the statutory\nwe believe that Congress should establish some limits on the\nlimit.\nSecretary's discretion in order to prevent legal and political\npressure to establish unreasonably high limits.\nProposal 3. Overall limit for AFDC family income\nProposal 4. 30 and 1/3 disregard in AFDC\nProposal 5. Work-related expenses\nOPPOSE, Page 4\nFEATURE\nPOSITION AND AMENDMENTS\n4. Inadequate Work Program & Sanctions\nThe bill would to all intents and purposes federalize\nThese provisions should be revised to require the recipient\nthe administration of welfare manpower training and\nto actively seek realistic job opportunities, especially\nemployment programs and thus further reduce the role\nthrough the private sector. In addition, provisions should\nof the States. Even more importantly the manpower\nbe added under which employable recipients who are not in\nprograms which make up the Opportunities for Families'\nwork or training would be referred to public agencies for the\nProgram are in the last analysis little more than a\nperformance of public service activities with no additional\ncontinuation of the WIN-type activities which, after\nremuneration other than their welfare benefits. California\nalmost five years, have proven to be ineffective in\nhas by action of the Legislature created such a program and\nrelation to its cost.\nwe are currently negotiating with HEW for a demonstration\nproject that would allow us to implement this program.\nIf an employable family member fails to register for\nSince aid in only a slightly reduced amount would be\nwork or refuses to take work or training, the only\ncontinued for the family, we believe that this is a weak and\npenalty the bill provides is his removal from the\nineffective sanction against those who would abuse the system.\ngrant.\nThe bill should provide a range of sanctions including the\nultimate sanction of the denial of aid to the entire family\nfor a period of up to one year.\nProposal 6. Community work program\nProposal 7. Employables program\nProposal 8. Sanctions imposed for refusal to work or train\n5. Social Services Pressure\nThe service implication of the Act is that all services\nenumerated should be made available. In California, which\nH.R. 1 defines the social services program in almost\nhas a comprehensive services program based upon federal\nexactly the same terms as present law, but at the\nguidelines, the practical effect of H.R. 1 will be to force\nsame time imposes a ceiling on federal expenditures\ncontinuation of an overabundant set of services even if\nfor state service programs.\nfederal money is not available to help pay the bill.\nProposal 15. Modification of statewideness requirement of\nsocial services\nOPPO B. Page 5\nFEATURE\nPOSITION AND AMENDMENTS\n6.\nSecretarial Discretion\nH.R. 1 gives broad discretionary powers to the\nThe Secretary of HEW is subject to many pressures from\nSecretary of HEW to establish policies governing\ngroups of recipients and others who benefit from the\nthe federal benefit system and, therefore, the\nwelfare system. In any welfare legislation the Secretary's\nsupplemental programs of the states.\ndiscretion should be as limited and clear as possible.\nLimitless discretion, particularly when it can severely\naffect state budgeting, will result in continuation of the\npresent \"leap frogging\" of benefits as the Secretary,\ninfluenced strongly by his firmly entrenched and bureaucratic\nstaff, tries to satisfy one pressure group after another.\nAddendum No. 3 - Testimony by Governor Ronald Reagan Before\nThe Senate Finance Committee February 1, 1972\nH.R. I Analysis - Support\nThe following provisions are those major provi-\nsions in H.R. 1 which are supported by California.\nIncluded in this package are suggestions for\namendment. There are other less significant\nprovisions which may also be supported by\nCalifornia but which have not been included in this\nanalysis.\nSUPPORT\n(with amendments as noted)\nFEATURE & POSITION\nAMENDMENTS\n1. Work Requirement in Family Programs\nProposal 6. Community work program\nProposal 7. Employables program\nWe support the general thrust of the pro-\nProposal 8. Sanctions imposed for refusal to work or train\nvisions in this bill which would require all\nemployable persons to register for work and\nto accept work or training. At the same time\nwe welcome recent enactment of (Talmadge Amend-\nments) Public Law 92-223. The work requirements\nin HR 1 should be amended in accordance with\nthis new law. Additional amendments will be\nnecessary to put teeth into the work require-\nment.\nP. Quarterly Accounting System in the Family\nWe support the provisions under which a quarter-\nly accounting system would be used for deter-\nmining benefits, taking into account estimated\nincome for the current quarter and actual in-\ncome for the three preceeding quarters. This\nprovision would effectively prevent abuses of\nthe system by those who earn a significant\namount of money during a short period of time,\nwhen their annual income would be more than\nsufficient to meet their needs. We urge that\nthis provision be retained.\nControl and Prevention of Improper Payments\nWe are in complete support of the expressions of\nProposal 17. Simplified methods\ndetermination by the Ways and Means Committee in\ntheir report on HR 1 that these welfare benefit\nprograms must be tightly administered with every\neffort made to prevent and control improper pay-\nments. In particular, we are glad that the\nSUPPORT, page\nFEATURE & POSITION\nAMENDMENTS\n3. Control and Prevention of Improper Payments Cont'd\nAdministration is determined that no simple\n\"declaration method\" will be used, and that\ninstead the essential facts in each case\nwould be verified to the extent needed. In\naddition, we support the provisions under which\nfamilies failing to make timely reports on their\ncircumstances would be penalized by a reduction\nin their benefit.\n4. Enforcement of Parental Obligations\nWe support and want to strengthen the pro-\nProposal 10. Increased federal reimbursement for child\nvisions for enforcement of the obligation\nsupport activities.\nwhich parents have to support their own\nProposal\n11. District Attorney costs in enforcing family\nchildren. State and local agencies' enforcement\nsupport\nwill be strengthened when the deserting parent\nrealizes that by his failure to support he is\nincurring a debt to the government, which would\nbe subtracted from income tax refunds and social\nsecurity payments. The provision making it a\nfederal crime to cross State lines to avoid child\nsupport will likewise strengthen the hands of\nthe States in this regard. We also support the\nprovision under which the income of a step-\nfather or stepmother would be considered in\neligibility and benefit determination in exactly\nthe same way as the income of a natural parent.\nWe believe, however, that increased fiscal in-\ncentives to the States also are necessary.\n5. Child Care\nWe support the provisions designed to assure\nadequate child care facilities to meet the needs\nof welfare mothers who go into work or training.\nWe believe that the full federal funding of child\ncare provided by the Department of Labor for those\nin the Opportunities for Families Program will\nhelp ease the fiscal burden on the States.\nSUPPORT, page 3\nFEATURE & POSITION\nAMENDMENTS\n5. Child Care Continued\nWe note that the Department of HEW would be\nresponsible for setting child care standards.\nWe hope that Congress, either through statute\nor expression of intent, would assure that\nthese standards are realistic, practicable and\nbroad enough to accommodate a wide range of\nalternatives in providing child care. The\npresent Federal Interagency Day Care Standards\nare rigid and unnecessarily expensive, and do\nnot consider the satisfaction of the mother as\na prerequisite to adequate child care.\n6. Vocational Rehabilitation Services\nWe support the provisions for a greatly ex-\npanded use of the vocational rehabilitation\nservices available through State Vocational\nRehabilitation agencies with the additional\ncosts to be borne by the Federal Government.\nThese programs have been among the best in\nCalifornia, with demonstrable results and\nmeasurable cost benefits.\n7. Social Services Ceiling\nWe support the principle involved in the\nThe costs of required State and local activities relating\nshift from an open-end reimbursement system,\nto determining paternity of needy children, locating\nto a closed-end allotment system for the\nabsent parents and obtaining child support from them\nfederal support of social services. We\nshould be excluded from the closed-end allotment, in\nbelieve this will encourage more effective\naddition to the costs of child care and family planning\nmanagement and administration of these pro-\nas provided in the bill. These State activities will\ngrams, and think that the allocation formula\nbe of direct fiscal benefit to the federal government\nthe bill provides is fair and equitable,\nsince collections will reduce expenditures for federal\nbenefits.\nSUPPORT, page 4\nFEATURE & POSITION\nAMENDMENTS\n7. Social Services Ceiling Continued\nWe do not, however, feel that the Federal\nGovernment should, through law or regula-\ntion, specify services to be provided at\ntheir present level of detail. Service\ndecisions must be made and results measured\nat a local level, since \"social services\"\nare essentially individual efforts of profes-\nsionals (doctors, lawyers, social workers,\nteachers) for and with individual welfare\nrecipients.\n8. Durational Residency Requirement\nWe support the provisions which would permit\nStates to impose a durational residency re-\nquirement as a condition of eligibility for\nState supplementary payment, and which would\nrequire the Federal Government to observe such\nrequirement with respect to any State supple-\nmentary payment program they administer on\nbehalf of the State.\nState of California\nDepartment of Social Welfare\nHuman Relations Agency\nJanuary 28, 1972\nPUBLIC ASSISTANCE CASELOADS AND EXPENDITURES\nMarch 1971 - December 1971\nAid Recipients\nPayments\nProgram\nMarch\nDec.\n1971\n1971\nDiff.\nGrand total.\n2,293,577\n2,117,732\n-175,845\nCash grant recipients\n2,190,428\n2,062,131\n-128,297\nGeneral home relief\n103,149\n55,601\nand 47,548\nAveraged/\nAGED PERSONS\nCash grant recipients\n323,642\n315,286\n- 8,356\nBLIND PERSONS (AB/APSB)\nCash grant recipients\n14,065\n13,820\n- 245\nDISABLED PERSONS\nCash grant recipients\n189,754\n190,778\n+ 1,024\nFAMILIES WITH\nDEPENDENT CHILDREN\nCash grant recipients:\nFamily groups:b/\nchildren\ncases\ntotal persons\n1,285,466\n1,273,241\n- 12,225\nUnemployed cases:\nchildren\ncases\ntotal persons\n342,763\n235,490\n-107,273\nBoarding Homes and\nInstitutions:\nchildren\n34,738\n33,516\n- 1,222\nGENERAL HOME RELIEF\nTotal persons\n103,149\n55,601\n- 47,548\nFamily cases\nPersons in family cases\nOne-person cases\nUnemployed in labor force (%)\n(Seasonally adjusted)\nCivilian population (excluding\nmilitary)\na/ Cash grant averages for adult aids computed from \"net\" person counts.\nb/ Excludes U cases.\np/ Preliminary.\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNO!\nRELEASE: Im diate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-31-72\n#54\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today announced the appointment of Santa\nMaria attorney Robert L. Trapp, Sr., to the Santa Barbara County\nSuperior Court.\nTrapp, 56, a Republican, will receive an annual salary of $35,080.\nHe succeeds Judge Morris Stephan who has retired.\nA partner in the firm of Trapp and Kirk, Trapp has practiced law\nin Southern California since 1945 and has served as a Deputy County\nCounsel for the County of Los Angeles.\nHe is a graduate of and earned his law degree from the University\nof Southern California.\nTrapp is a member of the State Bar of California, the Santa\nBarbara County Bar Association and the Santa Maria-Lompoc Valley Bar\nAssociation.\nHe and his wife Mildred have two children. The family home is in\nSanta Maria.\n######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE: Im' diate\nSacramento, Californ\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-31-72\n#55\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today appointed Marvin J. Cassadu\na Gridley farmer, to a four-year term on the board of the Third\nDistrict Agricultural Association (Silver Dollar Fair at Chico).\nCassady, a Republican, lives at Route 3, Box 3505, Gridley. He\nsucceeds the late Joseph N. Richardson of Chico on the board.\nBoard members receive necessary expenses.\n######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, Californ\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-31-72\n#56\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today named Polly A. Wyant of San Francisco\nand Mrs. Norine R. Helder of La Mesa and reappointed Donald H. Oliphant,\nSr., of Walnut Creek to four-year terms on the State Board of\nCosmetology in the Department of Consumer Affairs.\nMiss Wyant, a San Francisco court reporter, will represent the\npublic on the board. She lives at 82A Macondray Lane, San Francisco.\nShe is a Republican.\nMiss Wyant will fill the position now held by Mrs. Helder, who in\nturn will succeed Steve Couroso of Riverside, whose term has expired,\nas representative of owners and operators on the board.\nMrs. Helder, who operates a San Diego hair styling salon with her\nhusband Paul, lives at 4565 Shade Road, La Mesa. She is a Republican.\nOliphant, owner and operator of a Concord beauty college, has served\non the board since 1968, representing owners and operators. He lives\nat 44 Winfield Lane, Walnut Creek. He is a Republican.\nMembers of the board receive $25 per diem while on official duty.\n######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOI\nRELEASE: Imm iate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-31-72\n#57\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Emmett C. Woodward of\nSacramento to a four-year term on the Hearing Aid Dispensers Examining\nCommittee in Department of Consumer Affairs.\nWoodward, operator of Woodward Hearing Aid Centers, will represent\nhearing aid dispensers on the board. He was named to the board in 1971.\nWoodward, a Democrat, lives at 4919 Cameron Ranch Drive, Sacramento.\nMembers of the committee receive per diem and necessary expenses.\n######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOF\nRELEASE: Imme late\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-31-72\n#58\nDr. John H. Woolsey, Santa Rosa veterinarian, was reappointed to\na four-year term on the Board of Examiners in Veterinary Medicine today\nby Governor Ronald Reagan.\nDr. Woolsey, who lives at 716 High Street, Sebastopol, has served\non the board, which operates in the Department of Consumer Affairs,\nsince 1968. He is a Republican.\nBoard members are paid $25 per diem while on official duty.\n######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, Californi\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-31-72\n#59\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Julius P. Hammer, a\nSan Francisco bank official, to a four-year term on the Teachers'\nRetirement Board, subject to Senate confirmation.\nHammer, an officer of Wells Fargo Bank, has served on the board,\nrepresenting bank officials, since 1964. He lives at 1101 Green Street,\nSan Francisco. He is a Republican.\nMembers of the board receive expenses.\n#####\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE: Im ediate\nSacramento, Californi\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n1-31-72\n#60\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Chester L. Chesholm of\nSalinas and Mrs. June C. Duran of Pebble Beach, to four-year terms on\nthe board of the Seventh District Agricultural Association (Monterey\nCounty Fair).\nChesholm, a retired farmer and dairyman, has served on the board\nsince 1968. He lives at 11 Los Laureles, Salinas. He is a Republican.\nMrs. Duran, Assistant Vice President of the California Test Bureau,\nDivision of McGraw-Hill Book Company in Monterey, has also served on\nthe board since 1968. Her address is Box 23, Pebble Beach. She is a\nRepublican.\nBoard members receive necessary expenses.\n######\nWAS"
}