Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564440",
    "label": "Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1971 [05/01/1971-06/24/1971]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564440"
}

{
    "id": "118564440",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564440",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1971 [05/01/1971-06/24/1971]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564440",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Governor Ronald Reagan's Speeches"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P18-008-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P18-008-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P18-008-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564440",
    "naId": 118564440,
    "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/7408624/40-840-7408624-P18-008-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "fe7b3411c28efd35",
    "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: Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1971\n[05/01/1971-06/24/1971]\nBox: P18\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/\n1/5\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE: 2:30 p.m. SATURDAY\nSacramento, California\nMay 1, 1971\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n4-30-71\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nAmerican Association of University Women\nState Convention\nFresno, May 1, 1971\nI realize there are many vital issues that interest this\ndistinguished audience\nhigher education\ncampus unrest\ntuition\nschool financing\nenvironmental protection programs. But there is one\nsituation facing California which cannot be ignored.\nCalifornia and the rest of the nation must once and for all face up\nto the need for welfare reform.\nTo fully grasp the urgency of the situation, you have to realize\njust how fast welfare has grown and what it is costing our state and\nnation not only in dollars, but in values that are worth far more to\nour society than the money we spend on welfare.\nOnly ten years ago, the welfare caseload in California was 620,000\npeople. Today that is the annual rate of increase in the caseload,\nOne out of every nine citizens about 2½ million people are on\nwelfare or Medi-Cal or both---at a cost of 3½ billion dollars a year.\nUnless we do something to reverse this staggering growth, it will\nbe 1 out of 7 by the middle of next year.\nThis crisis is not confined to California. The rising numbers of\npeople on welfare and the staggering cost of public assistance is\nliterally pushing state and local governments to the edge of bankruptcy\nin New York\nin Pennsylvania\nin California\nin virtually every state.\nIt has become an intolerable financial burden because it is forcing\nstate and local governments to delay or underfund other essential programs\nin order to pay for an ever increasing welfare caseload.\nThere is a growing public revolt against welfare all across the\ncountry. This is not because our people have no concern for the poor.\nNc people in all history have given more of their resources to help those\nin need\nno people have taxed themselves more to meet man's moral\nobligation to assist the disadvantaged and those temporarily in distress.\nThe humanitarian instincts that prompted our system of public\nassistance are still deeply felt by our people. But they have watched\nwelfare change over the years into something no one ever intended when\nwe started formal public programs to assist the poor.\n- 1 -\nAAUW speech\nOur people have simply lost faith in the welfare system as it has\nevolved over the past three decades. They see it for what it is now\na hodge-podge of confusing and sometimes conflicting laws and\nregulations\na\nsystem bogged down in red tape and corrupted by legal\nloopholes that have allowed some who have well-paying jobs to qualify\nfor and receive the welfare benefits that are meant for the poor.\nAlmost every day, some new and shocking example of welfare abuse\ncomes to light. Yet, every time someone proposes a realistic and\neffective reform to eliminate welfare fraud and legal loopholes, the cry\ngoes up that reform is an attempt to deprive the poor. Let us examine\nthat charge.\nDoes anyone really believe it is fair for families earning $1,\nor more per month to be on welfare? The present rules have permitted\nsome isolated examples of this type of abuse.\nIs it right for a family earning $7,200 a year a figure well\nabove any poverty line yet suggested to receive the same amount of\nwelfare assistance as a family of the same size which has no outside\nincome? The present system of federally mandated income exemptions and\nlegal loopholes not only allows this type of inequity, it actually\nencourages it. And examples of this are not so isolated.\nShould working citizens be forced to pay higher and higher taxes\nto finance free unlimited medical benefits for those on welfare\nbenefits that are two to three times greater than the basic health\nprotection most citizens can afford for their own families?\nIs there something wrong with trying to adopt reasonable regulations\nthat will eliminate costly over-utilization of medical benefits through\nlimitations that still leave welfare families with a far broader health\nprogram than many working citizens have for themselves?\nShould the state simply give up efforts to tighten laws designed to\ncollect child support from the more than 230,000 fathers who have\nabandoned their responsibility to help support their children?\nIn the last fiscal year (1969-70) counties collected from only 15\npercent of absent parents of children on Aid to Families with Dependent\nChildren\nan average of about $75 per month from each absent parent.\nOur welfare reform includes tougher laws and financial incentives\nto the counties to enable them to greatly increase their collection in\nchild support cases,\nAAUW Speech\nIf we could raise the ratio from 15 percent to just 50 percent,\ncollecting the same average $75 per month it would mean well over $100\nmillion toward the support of these children now borne by the taxpaying\ncitizens.\nOther types of abuse arepossible under the current welfare system.\nI am sure many of you have actually seen examples yourselves, or perhaps\nyour sons and daughters have observed them.\nThe Food Stamp program, for example, was designed to stretch the\nfood purchasing power of our neediest citizens. It was not intended to\nhelp finance experiments in group living or as a subsidy for able-bodied\npersons who are fully capable of work but who have\nfor their own\nreasons chosen to drop out of society.\nA man has a constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness\nand\nthat can include dropping out of our system. But he cannot ask the rest\nof us to underwrite his pursuit without violating our constitutional\nrights.\nMany young people today express impatience with society and contempt\nfor what they regard as its misplaced priorities. But how can anyone\nrespect a society that continues to allow the educated and able-bodied\nto take advantage of welfare loopholes and, in effect, to steal bread\nintended for the poor?\nStealing is perhaps too soft a word to describe the legal abuses\nthat have occurred in the Food Stamp program. But it certainly is\naccurate because when someone who really does not need help claims a\nwelfare benefit, it means that much less for those who must depend upon\nwelfare for their very existence.\nIt is because of these types of abuses\nlegal and illegal\nit is\nbecause of welfare's chaotic red tape\nconflicting regulations and\nmisplaced priorities\nthat public assistance has become a costly and\ntragic failure.\nIt is failing its very reason for existence. Because we have to\nstretch the available funds to include some who should not be on welfare\nat all, our public assistance program is unable to provide sufficiently\nfor those who really need hlep the most. These are the truly needy\nthe blind, the elderly, the disabled and those children from families with\nlittle or no outside income and no employed breadwinner.\nEvery dollar wasted through administrative duplication\nwelfare\nfraud or legal abuse\nmeans that much less is available to provide for\nthe basic needs of the truly needy.\nAAUW Speech\nOne of the chief purposes of the 70-point welfare reform program\nwe have submitted is to lift the level of support that the state provide\nfor those who need help the most and to restore a degree of dignity to\nthe lives of those who must rely upon public assistance.\nTime prevents me from detailing the entire program, but I would\nlike to briefly acquaint you with the main goals.\nFirst of all, we want to provide automated monthly pensions for he\nelderly, the blind and disabled. The 600,000 persons in this category\nshould not be consigned forever to the welfare structure. They should\nnot be regarded as simply another entry in a social caseworker's notebool\nBecause of the permanence of their dependency, they are in fact pensione)\nWe want to provide their monthly checks through a pension program\nsimilar to Social Security. Everyone in these categories would receive\nthe check they now get, plus regular cost-of-living increases. And by\neliminating the costly social worker administrative structure as it\naffects these groups, we would hope to realize sufficient funds to\nincrease those monthly checks in time.\nCalifornia already provides the nation's most generous overall\nlevel of public assistance. We rank first or second among the states\nin three of the four major categories of aid grants to the blind, aged\nand disabled and our monthly payments are $38 to $55 per month higher\nthan the national average. We lead 35 other states in average monthly\npayments in the AFDC category with grants $5 per person higher than the\nnational monthly average.\nWith the reform program we have proposed, we will be able to increas\nthe monthly grants to those on AFDC who have no other outside income or\nvery little. A random sampling in Los Angeles showed that our welfare\nreform would allow us to provide increases ranging from 19 to 43 percent\nper month in AFDC benefits, depending on the size of the family.\nThis can be accomplished by imposing among other reforms\na\nrealistic limit on the amount of outside income a family may have and\nstill qualify for welfare benefits. And frankly I think our proposal\nin this regard are quite generous. Our ceiling would not eliminate\nsupplemental welfare aid to those whose incomes fell below the ceiling.\nFor a family of four in San Francisco, for example, welfare\nassistance would taper off to an end when the family income reached about\n$6,084 a year. (This figure should give you some idea of how high\nearnings can be now withthe individual still retaining welfare\neligibility). If the family's income is less than that amount, it would\nstill be eligible for supplemental assistance, including medical\nbenefits, Food Stamps and free school lunches.\n4 -\nAAUW Speech\nSuch a ceiling is essential if we are to divide the available\nwelfare funds among those who need help most.\nThe AFDC program is the largest, most emotional and most expensive\ncategory of welfare. About 1 million, 650 thousand persons receive\nbenefits on AFDC. It is this category that is most prono to abuse and\nit is in this category that we propose a fundamental change of direction.\nWe do not dispute society's obligation to provide for needy children\nBut we insist we also have an obligation to restore dignity and\ndirection to the lives of those on welfare.\nWe now have third and even fourth generations of families on AFDC\nand the program is growing every year. There are those who suggest that\nmost of this growth is because of the national economic slump and a\nhigher than normal rate of unemployment. The facts show otherwise.\nThe number of people on AFDC grew by 25 percent in 1968-69 a time\nwhen California had the lowest rate of unemployment it had known in\n15 years.\nThe problem with the AFDC program is far more basic. It simply has\nno goal. It started out to be a temporary helping hand, it has become\na way of life.\nWe have created a segment of society which looks upon poverty as a\nperfectly acceptable career. I do not share that view and I do not\nbelieve most Californians accept it either.\nNothing could be more destructive to our society than to subsidize\na permanent and growing poverty population that must be indefinitely\nsupported at public expense.\nIs there any dignity in being dependent? Can self-esteem and self-\nrespect grow in such an atmosphere of humiliating defeatism? Is it\nhumane or generous to consign generation after generation to the demeaning\nindignity of the dole?\nWe donot accept that degrading prospect. And so we have proposed\na drastic change of direction for welfare. We want to begin measuring\nwelfare's progress not by how many new people are added to the rolls\neach year but by how many we restore to economic self-sufficiency.\nWe propose to restore the dignity and discipline of work to the\nlives of those able-bodied AFDC adults who now are regarded as simply\nanother \"welfare case.\"\n- 5 -\nAAUW Speech\nEmployment in a job sufficient to pay one's way should become the\ngoal of the welfare system. The able-bodied adult must be regarded as\ntemporarily unemployed not as a permanent dependent.\nUnder our proposal, these adults would have to be either seeking\nemployment, training for a job or participating in the Public Assistance\nWork Force to continue receiving welfare.\nThe main goal of this work-oriented program would be employment in\na private or regular public sector job ultimately at wages sufficient\nto support the entire family.\nIf a person is not directed into the active job-market or into a\ntraining program, he would be expected to help with the public assistance\nwork force.\nWe have heard protests that this kind of rule is cruel or inhumane\nthat it is demeaning to require work for welfare.\nIt is none of those things. Society expects you and your families\nto work to support not only yourselves, but the government and all those\nwho are dependent upon government.\nThere are many things that the able-bodied adult could do to make a\nconstructive contribution to the society that supports them. They CC\nd\nhelp patrol urban school grounds to guard against vandalism or protect\nchildren from violence\nthey could take part in environmental recycling\nprojects\nmaintain park and recreational facilities. Women could\nprovide child care so that other mothers could be freed to either train\nfor a job or work.\nIf it is not demeaning for volunteer crews of students many of\nthem possibly your sons and daughters to pick up litter along the\nroadway, why is it demeaning to ask the able-bodind on welfare to make\na similar contribution to improve the environment?\nWhile this work program is initially aimed at able-bodied male\nrecipients, it also would offer women on AFDC an opportunity to become\nusefully employed and to escape the dreary cycle of dependency that\nwelfare has become.\nThe U.S. Labor Department says almost half of the married women in\nAmerica today who have children under 17 are now working to help support\ntheir families and very probably to help pay the taxes their family owes\nto government. Is it unfair to give AFDC mothers the same opportunity to\nearn economic independence when adequate child care is assured? Are we\nasking something unusual, out of the ordinary of them? Thirty seven\npercent of all the married women who work are mothers of children under\n5 years of age.\nAAUW Speech\n(\nAlmost 30 percent of the women on AFDC and more than one fourth of\nthe male recipients have the equivalent of a high school education or\nbetter.\nMany taxpayers who help pay for welfare have less than a 12th grade\neducation. Still they worked their way into economic spendence.\nSociety owes every citizen an equal opportunity to make maximum use\nof his talents\nto travel as far as his own energy and skill can take\nhim. Society has a moral obligation to help those who through no fault\nof their own are unable to provide for themselves. But society is not\nobligated to indefinitely subsidize those who simply refuse to try.\nWe hear pious declarations that we are attacking the result, not the\ncause. Well, when our citizens are working 4 months out of the year\njust to pay the cost of government and that is insufficient to finance\nnecessary government services because of one runaway program\nwelfare,\nthen welfare must be restructured so that we can go forward with\npositive programs\nincreased financial aid to education\nbetter\ntechnical training\nmore modern health facilities\npositive programs\nthat are essential if we are to eliminate cr even reduce the root causes\nof human misery.\nEvery person here knows the value of higher education to our society,\nnot only in dollars, but the intangible strengths that an educated\npeople provide in a free nation.\nOur state budget for higher education is $676 million this year,\nthe highest amount in the state's history. But welfare and Madi-Cal\nconsume almost twice as much.\nWe are investing $337 million in the University of California\nsystem\n40 percent more for 26 percent more students than we had four\nyears ago. But the cost of the AFDC program increased by 42 percent\nand the enrollment in this program went up 39 percent in just one year.\nWe are providing $20 million a year for student scholarships and\nloans. $20 million will not pay for one week of welfare.\nWe have been told that higher education needs more state financial\nassistance -millions of dollars more. Can we ask the working men and\nwomen for even more of their earnings when we know we have not done all\nthat is possible to get the most and the best use out of the money they\nare already providing?\n- 7 -\nAAUW Speech\nUnless we brin welfare's excessive cost Tral under control\nhigher education will not get those millions there will be less and\nless money for education and training the positive cures for poverty\nand the state will go on paying more and more to finance an unworkable,\ndiscredited system that fails the helpless victims it is supposed to\nrescue.\nWe need your help. Specifically your letters and those of your\nfriends directed to your own legislators your own assemblyman and\nstate senator. It does not do much good to write to those who do not\nrepresent your particular district they need to hear from their own\nconstituents.\nWe do not expect to convert any of those self-appointed leaders of\nthe \"professional poor.\" Their power depends upon a continuation of the\nhuman misery and the dependency that the present welfare system has\nproduced. They will never agree to any change that really cures poverty.\nThe poor have become their clientele and they are not about to reduce\ntheir number.\nNo, we hope to convince reasonable men and women from all walks of\nlife that we cannot go on as we have been going that we cannot afford\nthe cost in dollars. But even more we cannot afford what welfare is\ncosting us in the destruction of the spiritual and moral values that\ncreated\nour society the ideals of individual and family responsibility.\nWe must offer the poor the same opportunity this nation has always\noffered\nthe\ndown\ntrodden\nan equal chance to earn\nthrough their own\nefforts a respected place in society and the material rewards that go\nwith economic independence.\nThat is the ethic upon which America created the freest and most\nprosperous society ever known to man. It is the vision and the dream.\nthat built California.\nWelfare was born of the compassion of our people the most humane,\nopen handed society the world has ever known. It has become a monster\ndestroying that which it was intended to help our most precious\nresource our people.\nWe must turn away from the philosophy that some men must be condemned\nto exist forever off the confiscated earnings of others.\nWe must reaffirm our faith in the values of work, self-reliance and\nindividual dignity. Without those values, freedom and dignity cannot\nsurvive.\nWith them, our state and our nation can reach new heights of\ngreatness.\nThis choice is ours to make. I believe we must make it now.\n61/5\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE: WEDNESDAY P.Ms.\nSacramento, California\nApril 12, 1971\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n5-12-71\nEXCERTPS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nLEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES\nSACRAMENTO\nMay 12, 1971\nSolving problems is the business of government and one of the\ngreatest problems you are faced with today is how to finance the\nincreasing cost of essential services within the revenues available to you\nThis is not a California problem alone. Virtually every city,\ncounty and state government in America is facing a fiscal crisis. The\nnation's largest city, New York, talks of a budget exceeding $9 billion\ngreater than any state budget and second only to the federal government\nand still it talks of having to lay off 90,000 employees who have been\nadded to the payrolls in recent years.\nThe state of New York is faced with firing more than 8,000 employees,\neliminating needed rehabilitation programs, cutting back on higher\neducation and many other essential services.\nCalifornia too faces a time of stringency and cash flow problems,\nbut the past four years of cut, squeeze and trim finds us able to meet\nthe present crisis without drastic steps. We have fewer employees for\nexample than we had four years ago and other efforts at economy are now\npaying off. Still we have a critical period of decision-making because\nwe simply do not have sufficient revenue to finance all the spending\nrequests that come before us.\nInflation, and the economic slump that has resulted from the\nbeginning transition to a peace time economy, has reduced state revenues.\nThe constant push for expanded services also takes a toll.\nWe have to critically examine each new spending request. And we\nmust constantly be alert for ways to reduce even further the cost of\nexisting programs, especially those which are consuming a disproportionate\nshare of the revenue available to government.\nBefore I elaborate on these efforts and how it affects the cities of\nCalifornia, I would like to briefly discuss some other matters I know are\nof deep concern to you.\nWe appreciate the opportunity of working with the League of Californi\nCities. The relationship between my office and your representatives is a\nclose one and we are always happy to hear any suggestions on how we can\nimprove communications between Sacramento and the level of government\nwhich is closest to the people\nthe cities.\nLeague of California Cities\nWe share many common problems, ranging from finances to employer-\nemployee relationships. And we welcome your views on ways of defining\nour different responsibilities to meet the needs of the people at the\ndifferent levels of government.\nMay I interject a personal view here on one problem which is\nbecoming more widespread and is of great concern to you I know. This is\nthe matter of strikes by public employees. I was an officer of my union\nfor 25 years and for much of that time played a leading role in contract\nnegotiations with management. I believe the strike is a legitimate tool\nin bargaining between a free trade union's membership and a private\nindustry. In fact I led our union as president in the first strike we\never had.\nBut I strongly believe the right to strike is something public\nemployees must forego. Government, at any level, is not like a private\nbusiness. Government cannot close down. A strike is the use of\nexcessive power to win a point test of whether the worker can afford\nto withhold his services longer than the employer can shut down his\nbusiness. Inherent in this contest is the knowledge that if at any ti\nthe public good is endangered, government the elected representatives\nof the people will protect the people's interest. But government cannot\nrefuse to provide the services and protections prescribed by the\nconstitution and charters of the nation, the states and the cities. It\nmust continue round the clock giving essential services certain basic\nprotections to the people.\nGovernment has no choice but to continue operations any way that it\ncan. Now because of this, government as an employer, has a responsibility\nto provide machinery for settling grievances whether over salary levels\nor working conditions-to insure the greatest possible fairness in its\nrelations with its employees. Having done this to the best of its ability\nthe final decisions on how far government can go to meet employee needs\nand requests must be made by elected officials.\nFor many years, the state has returned to cities and local\ngovernments part of the revenue it collects from the sales, cigarette and\nhighway user taxes. This amounts to more than $500 million this year, and\nrepresents an important part of municipal revenues.\nNow as a possible answer to some of our shared financial problems the\nfederal government or at least the administration in Washington has\nproposed federal revenue sharing. At the state level, we have supported\nLeague of California Cities\nObviously, the ideal would be if the federal government returned\nthe tax resources to state and local government and let us raise the\nmoney ourselves. But this would be the millenium. Next best might be\ntax credits returning a portion or percentage of the federal income\ntax to us.\nOne reason states and local governments find themselves in periodi\nfinancial difficulty is because the federal government has pre-empted\nso many of the available sources of revenue. Whenever a tax dollar goe\nto Washington and is returned through some federal program, part of it\nis lost through needless administrative overhead. Red tape and\nrestrictions attached to federal grants is in itself one of the most\ndifficult administrative problems for cities and local governments\ndenying us the flexibility we need to allocate the revenue where it is\nmost needed.\nHowever, a proposal has been made by the president and certainly it\ngoes farther than anything we have heard from Washington in many years.\nWe have been offered a share of federal revenues along with the\nresponsibility for some of the present programs free of federal mandates\nand regulations.\nThe president's proposal goes beyond anything Washington has ever\noffered before. If local and state governments can use their federal\nfunds under the president's plan in such a way that a surplus remains\nover and above the cost of the program, the surplus can be used to lower\nlocal taxes if the local governments so choose.\nNaturally, there is great resistance to this program in the Congres\nand in the Washington bureaucracy which will lose some of its size and\npower under this plan. We can have this first step toward restoration\nof local and state autonomy and adequate financing, only if we get\npublic backing and pressure on the Congress.\nIn the meantime, can we give up and impose even more of a tax burde\non our already over-burdened citizens without doing our utmost to reform\nwelfare--Medi-Cal and even education? The taxpayer has a right to know\nthat every tax dollar is being wisely and efficiently used.\nLast year, a management survey disclosed that one major school\ndistrict was still spending money on out-of-state recruiting trips at a\ntime when it had 15 applicants for every teaching vacancy. It was not\nusing modern purchasing practices to hold down the cost of such mundane\nitems as paper towels and window cleaners.\n- 3 -\nLeague of California Cities\nHow many other school districts could find similar examples of\ninefficiency and excessive cost? How many cities or counties?\nAs you know, the state has made available to cities and other local\ngovernment agencies the cost saving possibilities in the mass purchase\nof equipment and supplies. In the 1969-70 fiscal year, almost $10\nmillion of equipment was purchased through this program for 139 cities,\n43 counties and 49 special districts, among others. The items purchased\nincluded more than 2,600 vehicles of various types police cars, trucks,\ntypewriters, gasoline, paper and other items of necessary equipment.\nParticipating local agencies saved more than $1 million by taking part\nin the voluntary cooperative purchasing program.\nEfficient cost control must become standard operating procedure at\nevery level of government. Taxpayers cannot be expected to subsidize\ninefficieny of government.\nBut you and I both know this will not be enough. The housekeeping\nand administrative economies we have achieved are significant savings.\nBut we could save millions buying paper clips efficiently and it still\nwould not be enough to offset the staggering growth of welfare in\nb\ncost and caseload.\nEven though cities do not have as much of a direct role in welfare\nas the counties and the state, you do have a vital stake in welfare\nreform. In a very real sense, the question of whether cities and other\nlocal governments obtain the additional revenue they need depends on the\noutcome of the battle for welfare reform.\nEvery taxing jurisdiction is in direct competition with every other\nlevel of government for tax revenue. When one level of government takes\na disproportionate share, it makes it that much harder for every other\nlevel of government to raise the revenues they need to keep pace with\nrising costs.\nSome of the legislative leadership in Sacramento seems to be\ncuriously unaware of that fact or else they choose to ignore it.\nThey apparently would rather increase taxes instead of easing the\ntax burden by reforming welfare.\nThose in control of the legislature somehow have failed to hear the\nmassive cry from the grass-roots for tax relief.\nInstead, they have suggested a so-called \"tax reform\" program that\nonly partly conceals a massive tax increase for our citizens.\nLeague of California Cities\nLip service has been given to economy, even while they introduce\nspending measures---all of which would require higher taxes. Already\nthey have asked for more than $4.1 billion of additional state bonds.\nThe state treasurer felt it necessary to point out the implications\nof adding this amount of bonded debt in a single year. Only an\nestimated $500 to $600 million of state bonds can be sold in a normal\nyear without disrupting the bond market. Since cities rely on municipal\nbonds to finance capital improvements, this should be a concern to you,\ntoo.\nEven though some of our legislators choose to ignore all these\nfactors, we must consider them, We must consider them because every new\nspending program, every dollar of additional cost that requires higher\ntaxes, and every new bond issue, are critical individual parts of an\noverall economic equation that we must keep in mind to assure the\ncontinued economic stability of California and all its different levels\nof government.\nObviously, we have to establish priorities on spending; we must\ndecide which bond programs are most important; and we must hold down the\ncost of government to a level which will not require massive new taxes.\nUnfortunately, there are still those who live back in a discredited\nday, where they think political success comes to those who tax and tax\nand spend and spend someone else's money.\nThere is no secret about my conviction that more than any other\nsingle step, it is imperative that we reform welfare this year.\nThe present welfare system in California costs $3.5 billion in tax\nmoney each year. And this is a staggering financial burden on the working\ncitizens of this state.\nThere is almost unanimous agreement that welfare must be reformed,\neven among those in the legislature who refuse to act. The present system\nis a hodge-podge of confusing and conflicting regulations\nit is\nperpetuating welfare as a way of life. Because of various complex ways\nof computing eligibility, welfare now allows and even encourages\noutrageous abuses which are unfair to those who need help the most and\nto the taxpayers who must pay for welfare.\nIt is not necessary for me to impress upon this audience the cost\nimpact of welfare. But I would like to point out a few examples of how\nwelfare spending compares with other essential programs.\n- 5 -\nLeague of California Cities\nIn the past four years, we have been able to increase state suppor\nfor public schools by $500 million the largest dollar increase in an\ncomparable period in the state's history. Yet unless we have welfare\nreform, the total cost of public assistance and Medi-Cal will go up mor\nthan 600 million dollars within the coming fiscal year!\nThis year's state budget provides $337 million for the Univers -Y\nof California system. That is more than a 40 percent increase in funds\ncompared to a 26 percent increase in emrollment over four years.\nSpending in the AFDC program went up 42 percent in one year and th\nenrollment in that program increased 39 percent in one year.\nWe provide $20 million to finance college scholarships and loans\nfor needy students welfare spends that much in a week.\nWe could completely phase out all the General Fund costs and the\nfunctions of three of the four major state agencies Business and\nTransportation, Resources and Agriculture and Services\nand the savings\nwould only be $154 million. Welfare and Medi-Cal costs eight times that\nmuch this year in state funds alone.\nThe total cost of welfare and Medi-Cal in California is running at\nthe rate of $9 million a day.\nWe can cut that cost by $2 million a day in state, county and\nfederal spending if we can get passage of our welfare reform.\nI am sure many of you are familiar with the general purpose of the\n70 point welfare program we have proposed. Fully implemented, it will\nsave between $566 and $836 million a year in tax funds.\nIt will eliminate legal loopholes which presently permit persons\nwith significant income to remain eligible for welfare. It will provide\na monthly pension check to our elderly, the blind and the totally\ndisabled\ninstead of treating them as so many welfare \"cases.\"\nBy fixing a reasonable ceiling on the amount of income a family may\nhave and still be eligible for welfare, it will assure that the funds we\nhave available for public assistance are directed to those most in nee\nthose who have little or no outside income.\nBy eliminating from the rolls those who have significant outside\nincome\nthere will be more funds to provide better benefits for the nee\nAFDC families which have no other source of support without raising\ntaxes. And the work requirement we propose for able-bodied adults will\nrestore discipline and dignity to a system that now encourages generatio\nafter generation to remain dependent on public assistance.\nLeague of California Cities\nThe only major objection to our program is the mistaken belief that\nthere would be certain cost shifts to the counties. Shortly after I\nannounced our program, I directed the State Department of Social Welfare\nto send teams into each county to discuss each component of the plan and\nto reconcile wherever possible the differences that always accompany\nestimates.\nLet me say first that the majority of counties and county officials\nstrongly endorse our overall welfare reform goals. They have demonstrated\na spirit of cooperation that indicates to me how necessary this reform\nis to the state and to the local government most affected.\nObviously, when cost estimates are made on a program's impact, there\nare differences of opinion. Many of these differences are rapidly being\nresolved. We are prepared to work with the counties to reach complete\nagreement so that they will be satisfied that there will be no additional\nburden on them.\nWe have always been prepared to make adjustments and reconcile any\ndifferences to guarantee that there would be no additional cost burden on\nlocal government. To emphasize this point I have some news to report.\nToday in fact in just a few minutes Senator Burgener will introduce\namendments which will enable the counties to be confident that there will\nbe no cost shift to them. These amendments will reinforce our commitment\nto the counties and, at the same time, maintain the integrity and intent\nof our welfare reforms. For those who may have missed the emphasis the\nfirst time, I would like to say once again as clearly as possible that\nthere will be no net cost shi a to counties in this welfare reform.\nInstead, there will be millions of dollars of savings and the state will\ntake over a tremendous administrative load that counties have been\nshouldering alone.\nThose county officials who give up on welfare reform are\nin\neffect telling their citizens that a property tax increase is\ninstitable and that there is no alternative. There is an alternative:\nwelfare reform.\nIf, for any reason, our estimates should prove higher than the final\nactual savings from reform, then I repeat the pledge I made to the\ncounties the state will adjust its financial support so that NO county\nwill have additional costs as a result of welfare reform. I tell you\nthis, because you and the counties share the same source of revenue---\nLeague of California Cities\nArguments about whether a particular reform will save $3 million\nor $5 million must not be used as an excuse to block an overhaul of the\nwelfare program.\nNor should anyone resort to partisan politics to block reforms which\nhave been supported by all reasonable men\nDemocratic\nand\nRepublican\nat every level of government.\nMany of the reforms we proposed have been suggested by county and\nlocal officials. Every major plan now being discussed contains elements\nof our plan.\nWe have a program that is workable a plan that provides a sweeping\nchange of direction for the welfare cost spiral that has pushed state and\nlocal governments to the edge of bankruptcy.\nWe cannot afford to delay action on welfare reform just because\nWashington is talking about the same subject. They have been talking\nabout it for several years now and some of their previous efforts at\n\"reform\" created the most outrageous abuses we are now trying to corre\nCalifornia's legislature cannot abdicate its responsibility to\ncorrect what we know to be a badly constructed welfare program which is\nnot achieving its purpose and which is consuming vast sums of revenue\nthat would be better spent for other vital programs.\nMore than 4,700 separate bills are before the legislature this\nsession. Aside from the budget, the most important are the three bills\nwhich constitute the welfare reform we have proposed, a realistic tax\nreform and a budget balanced without increased taxes.\nIf the legislature is really concerned about the financial plight of\nthe cities\nthe counties\nthe schools, if they are really concerned\nabout reducing the tax burden on our citizens, they will pass our welfare\nreform program and deal with these other problems.\nThe only alternative is a massive increase in taxes\nan increase\nthat would make it that much harder for cities and local governments to\nfinance their own operations.\nOpponents of our welfare reform say they prefer the tax increase.\nI believe the people prefer welfare reform. I believe every public\nofficial concerned with the economic stability of government at any level\nshould be in favor of reforming welfare, too,\n######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above text. However, the governor will\nstand by the above quotes.)\n8\ntill\n5/14\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNL_\nRELEASE: Friday P.M.s\nSacramento, California\nMay 14\nContact: Paul Beck\n445-4571\n5-13-71\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nDepartment of Consumer Affairs\nAnnual Board Breakfast\nSacramento\nMay 14, 1971\nGovernment is too big, too costly and too far removed from the\npeople in many cases to be responsive to the individual citizen's\nproblems.\nIf those words sound familiar, they should. They emphasize a\ntheme that I have been sounding off about for many years long before\nI became governor.\nThe things I have learned while in public office have only\nreinforced my belief that government must have a constant flow of\nnew ideas from the public and more citizen participation if it is\nto be effective in meeting the needs of our people. We have been\ntrying to accomplish both those goals and we have made some progress.\nSince we met a year ago, a lot has been happening in state\ngovernment to strengthen California's ability to protect the consumer.\nMost of the boards and commissions represented here today will\nbe affected in one way or another by the two major reorganizational\nplans we are putting into effect this year and next year.\nOur goal simply stated- is to provide a more effective direct\nlink between the consumer and those state agencies which have the\nresponsibility for protecting consumer interests. Instead of getting\na runaround from one agency to another, we want the individual citizen\nto be able to seek and get prompt action on his complaints whether\nthey involve health quacks or phony merchandising schemes.\nWe also want to streamline this particular area of government so\nthat the boards and commissions dealing with various consumer-oriented\nproblems and programs will be consolidated into a more efficient and\nlogical administrative structure.\nThe first part of this reorganization already is under way. It\ncreated the State Department of Consumer Affairs, the parent agency\nunder which most of your boards and commissions are now operating.\nThis department already has made considerable progress under Leighton\nHatch's direction in streamlining the state's consumer protection\nprogram.\n-1-\nA one-stop consumer complaint and information handling service\nhas been put into effect so that the individual citizen now has a\ncentral place to register a complaint or have his specific grievance\nquickly referred to the proper agency for handling.\nThe department will publish a handy consumer complaint handbook\nand has published other material needed to acquaint the average\ncitizen with his rights and the consumer protection services that are\navailable to him, including Small Claims Court.\nThey are working with the Department of Education to promote more\neffective consumer education programs in the public schools.\nThe Consumer Affairs Act that becomes operational on July 1 will\nhelp us accomplish our goal of increasing public participation on the\nvarious regulatory boards and commissions.\nVery shortly, we will be announcing a Consumer Advisory Council.\nIts membership will include two representatives from voluntary consumer\norganizations, one from labor, two from business and one legislative\nappointee each from the State Senate and Assembly.\nThe purpose of this committee will be to make recommendations for\nlegislation to help us maintain California's leadership in consumer\nprotection.\nA second part of the plan calls for a Consumer Fraud Task Force\nto compile information on the various kinds of consumer rackets and\nfraud and to recommend new laws or other steps necessary to strengthen\nthe enforcement of our existing anti-fraud laws.\nThe other major reorganizational program involves the creation of\na single Department of Public Health. Responsibility for California's\nmany health programs now is divided among several departments, including\nthe Department of Consumer Affairs.\nThis fragmentation and overlapping jurisdiction creates confusion,\ninhibits effective planning and makes it difficult to achieve maximum\nbenefit from the dollars the state spends to protect the health of\nthe citizens of California.\nAt the consumer level, it leaves the individual with the task of\ntrying to thread his way through a maze of health programs to find\nexactly the type of service or program he needs.\nUnder the reorganization plan, eleven healing arts boards of the\nDepartment of Consumer Affairs will be transferred to a new Department\nof Health.\n-2-\nOne of the respo ibilities of this department will be to\ndetermine what the state can do to help meet the manpower needs in the\nhealth and medical care service area doctors, nurses, pharmacists,\nand so forth.\nThe decisions that are made by the healing arts licensing boards\ncould have a significant impact on the ability of the state to carry\nout programs to increase the manpower available for medical and health\ncare service in California.\nBy combining these functions in the Department of Health, it will\nstreamline planning and eliminate some duplication of effort.\nWhen this reorganization becomes operational (on July 1, 1972),\nwe think it will be a tremendous benefit to you in carrying out your\nregulatory duties. It also will help us do a better job of meeting\nCalifornia's health needs.\nI also would like to take just a moment to speak to you--not as a\nmember of a board or commission- but as citizens and individual members\nof the business and professional community.\nAs you know, this is a year of austerity for state government.\nWhile the national economic slump aggravated our problems, it is not\nthe major cause. The major cause is welfare and the massive amounts\nof state revenue necessary to finance this program.\nThe current system is a hodge-podge of confusing and sometimes\nconflicting regulations which have perpetuated welfare as a way of\nlife. Legal loopholes have permitted some families with incomes of\n$12,000 or more per year to remain eligible for welfare.\nSome of the worst abuses involve the Aid to Families with Dependent\nChildren program. A majority of the 1.6 million persons on AFDC involve\nfamilies in which the male parent has either abandoned his responsibility\nto provide for his children or is otherwise absent.\nWelfare has become bogged down in red tape and is no longer\nachieving its original purpose of providing for those who are most in\nneed of help.\nAs you know, we have proposed a comprehensive 70-point welfare\nreform program designed to completely change the direction of public\nassistance in California.\nInstead of welfare payments we want to provide pension checks for\nthe elderly, the blind and disabled. They should not be lumped\ntogether as so many welfare cases. These pension checks would be\ndistributed through an automated system similar to Social Security\na\nwhich will eliminate a lot of\nand ultimately should able us to increase the grants to our senior\ncitizens and those permanently disabled citizens who have no other\nmeans of support.\nA major emphasis is on eliminating loopholes and abuses and to\nreintroduce the discipline and dignity of work in the AFDC program.\nAs it now operates, AFDC is not the temporary helping hand it was\nintended to be. We now have second and third generations of familie\nwho have known no other way of life.\nWe want to require able-bodied welfare recipients on AFDC to\neither work, be seeking a job, be in training for a job or take part\nin a Public Assistance Work Force---as a condition for receiving\nfurther welfare benefits.\nWe want to enact new legal procedures to track absent AFDC fathers\nand collect at least some child support from those who have abandoned\ntheir responsibility and instead have thrown the entire burden of their\nfamily's support on the taxpayer.\nThis overhaul of the welfare system will result in a total saving\nof between $566 to $836 million in state, federal and local taxes. It\nwill eliminate the abuses, and it will allow us to provide better\nbenefits for those families which have little or no outside income.\nThere are a number of other specific steps designed to eliminate\nloopholes and abuses and provide administrative savings. I hope you\nbecome familiar with the entire package because frankly, we need your\nhelp.\nWe must convince a majority of the legislature that welfare reform\nis a priority California must act on this year.\n# # #\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be addition\nto, or changes in the above text. However, the governor will\nstand by the above quotes.)\n-4-\n5.1\n5/19\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNO\nRELEASE:\nWE\nESDAY P.Ms.\nSacramento, California\nMay 19, 1971\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n5-18-71\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nSTATE MEN'S AND WOMEN'S CLUB LUNCHEON\nSacramento\nMay 19, 1971\nThe whole reason for government is to serve the people of California,\nto meet their needs and to help them build a better tomorrow for\nthemselves and for our state. This is what you and I are working for;\nit is what our people expect.\nI am proud of the progress we have made in meeting the needs of the\npeople of California. And I would like to thank you for your part in\nmaking this progress possible.\nCalifornia is often called a working model of the future. If you\nwant to know what the world will be like tomorrow, look at California\ntoday.\nWith their inventive genius and productive capacity, our people are\nfar ahead of the world in almost every major area of advanced scientific,\neducational and medical development. And we are often first in other\nthings too the fads and far-out fashions the social unrest and other\nproblems that man creates for himself in an urban society.\nIn the field of environmental protection, California was the first\nstate to recognize smog and air pollution as a major problem. But\nbecause of persistent efforts, we are on our way to being the first\nindustrial society in the world to learn how to successfully cope with\nand control air pollution without stopping progress.\nWe have been consistently ahead in the fight against all forms of\npollution. And we have some specific, measurable progress to show for it.\n--Every 1971 model automobile sold in California emits 85 percent\nfewer hydrocarbons than new vehicles used to discharge before our smog\ncontrols went into effect.\n--This year, California put into effect the first new car controls\never imposed anywhere on exhaust oxides of nitrogen. That's the\nbrownish-orange colored element that makes smog such a visible irritant\nin Los Angeles and other areas.\nOur air, water and noise pollution controls nee setting 7 standard\nfor the rest of the nation to follow,\n1 -\nState Men's and Women's Club\nBut we are not sa sfied. We are asking the agislature to adopt\neven tougher emission standards and pollution controls for older model\nused cars the last major source of vehicle air pollution.\nIn a recent nation-wide competition for the most beautiful\nhighways, California took five of the top nine awards. This reflects the\npolicy adopted several years ago, assuring for the first time protection\nof the environment in planning and building all types of public works\nprojects.\nA few weeks ago, California took another step forward. We adopted\nan official state policy to involve local citizens in the planning of\nfreeway and transportation corridor routes. We are asking them not only\nto help us decide the paths that freeways and highways will take near\ntheir communities, but we are asking them to help us determine whether\nanother type of transportation system would be more feasible than a\nfreeway or highway in the transportation corridor.\nNow we know we cannot simply outlaw the automobile. But we can and\nwe aremoving to eliminate the environmental problems the automobile has\ncaused.\nWe know we cannot stop building highways. But we can consider the\nenvironment when we build every roadway as some of our highway engineers\ndid recently when theyre-routed a highway to protect a small pond that\nwas a breeding area for a rare type of salamander.\nIt is our responsibility yours and mine to look to the future in\nplanning all public works projects. We must build into every decision an\nassurance of maximum environmental protection. And while we are doing\nall this, we must continue to work diligently to clean up the pollution\ncaused by the neglect of the past.\nTougher laws, of course, will not eliminate air or water pollution\nwithout help from man. Man creates his own environment. All of us must\nwork together to assure the cleaner air, the fresher water and the\nuncluttered landscapes we want to preserve for ourselves and for our\nchildren.\nThese are specific areas of progress which you in state government\nhave helped California to achieve. And while they involve the environment\nthe final result is the same as all our other efforts to build a better\ntomorrow for the people we both serve--the people of California.\nThat was our purpose and our goal in pushing the concept of\ncommunity mental health programs.\nany 2 -\nState Men's and Women Club\nIn 1967, the state budget for community health services in California\nwas $18 million. It is $96 million this year and the increased\nfinancing tells only part of what is a dramatic effort to improve care\nfor the mentally ill. Fifty-six of our 58 counties now offer community\nmental health services. Instead of warehousing the mentally ill in\noutmoded hospital facilities, these local programs allow mentally ill\npatients to seek the treatment they need in their own communities, in\nsurroundings that are familiar to them and where they can still be close\nto their families and friends.\nBecause of more effective treatment services, the length of stay in\nthe hospital has been shortened. And the number of patients in our state\nhospitals on a given day has decreased from about 37,500 in 1959 to an\nestimated 11,500 this year---even though new admissions have increased\nfrom 30,000 to 40,000 in the past seven years alone.\nThe overcrowding that existed in California's hospitals for the\nmentally ill for decades is no longer a problem. In 1968, we were able\nto adopt new space and nursing staff standards and we reached those goals\nfour years ahead of schedule.\nState programs aimed at correcting the overcrowding in hospitals for\nthe retarded also are going forward. The two year waiting period for\nadmission that existed in 1964 has been cut to about two and one half\nmonths now. Improved space standards in the hospitals for the retarded\nwill be achieved this July 1. Our facilities for the retarded have more\nstaff than at any time in their history and are within 18 to 24 months\nof reaching 100 percent of the higher staffing standards we adopted in\n1968.\nYou should be proud of these results. I am. Every other state in\nthe nation looks to this state as a model in the treatment of the\nmentally ill. California is the only major state to have all of its state\nhospitals and institutions fully accredited by the national commission\nwhich sets the standards for mental health programs. *\nOur neighboring state of Nevada which has only one hospital\nhas\nreceived this accreditation. But except for California no other state\nwith more than one hospital has received this overall tribute to the\neffectiveness and efficiency of its programs for the mentally ill and\nmentally retarded. All 15 of our state hospitals and institutions have\nbeen fully accredited.\n- 3 -\n*Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals\nState Men's and Women ( Club\nWe have made great progress in broadening educational opportunities\nfor our young people. This year, California's state scholarships and\nloan program will issue more than 21,000 grants to help individual\nstudents further their college educations. The state is investing some\n$20 million in scholarships and loans for students. Four years ago it\nwas less than one fourth of that, but I prefer to measure this particula\nachievement in terms of the opportunity it means to our young people.\nProtecting the environment means protecting people. The mental\nhealth program is designed to provide better health service to people,\nIn education, we have expanded opportunity for individual advancement\na service for people.\nBut there is another achievement which is more significant than all\nthe others and that is the progress we have made in saving human life\nitself. Last year, the number of traffic fatalities on California's\nstreets and highways reached an all time low.\nThe mileage death rate dropped to 4.2 deaths per 100 million miles\nof travel, a record which we feel reflects the vigorous law enforcement\nand the added safety factors involved in the completion of 275 miles OF\nnew freeways.\nAccidents involving more than one vehicle went down 5 percent.\n--Fatal accidents in cities decreased 7 percent.\n--The number of pedestrians killed at city intersections went down\n29 per cent.\nAlthough we must never relax our efforts, those figures represent\ntremendous progress in improved traffic safety. The most gratifying\nstatistic of all is the fact that the total number of highway deaths\nlast year vias 179 fewer than during the previous year. (4,901 compared\nto 5,080 in 1969).\nThis means that having more highway patrolmen on our freeways is\nhaving an impact. It means that the tougher laws we have enacted to deal\nwith drunken driving are working.\nIn simplified terms, it might be said that all these traffic safety\nefforts by so many in state government could have meant life itself for\nat last 179 people people who might otherwise have died in automobile\naccidents.\n- 4 -\nS\nand\nwomen's\nClub\nWe are still faci many unresolved problems We need a complete\noverhaul of the welfare system to give it dignity and purpose and to\nimprove benefits for those who need help the most. We need realistic\ntax reform. We need to balance our forthcoming budget. And we need to\naccomplish all this without increasing the tax load on our citizens\nif possible.\nI am not passing on any state secrets when I remind you that this\nis an austerity year for state government, in California and every other\nmajor state. Yet, curiously enough, this very austerity emphasizes the\nnecessity of our past efforts to hold down the cost of government.\nAlthough we were unable to provide an across-the-board salary\nincrease this year, we do seek to improve your retirement benefits; we\nhave budgeted $111/2 million in fringe benefits that state employees have\nsought for a number of years including overtime pay, night differentials\nand unemployment insurance benefits; of course we will have the usual\nmerit pay increases.\nContrast this, if you will, to the situation in New York the only\nother state comparable in size to California. New York faces the\nprospect of firing more than 8,000 state workers. New York City with\na budget larger than any state and second only to the federal government-\nis considering layoffs totalling 90,000 public employees.\nSo far, we have been able to avoid any such mass reductions and\nthe main reason is the fact that for the past four years we have made a\nconcentrated effort to hold down the number of additional employees.\nWe aid not demand economy in government for a punitive purpose. We\ninsisted on more efficiency because, frankly, there was real need for\nimproved management in state government and because if we had not done\nso, we would have been unable to find sufficient funds to finance\nessential programs.\nWe have to squeeze every penny of value out of every tax dollar\nspent. We still do.\nNow, I am not unmindful of the sacrifice that you face this year by\nbeing asked to forego the usual cost of living pay increase we have\nprovided in the past. I wish there was no necessity for it, and I truly\nhope our effort at belt-tightening will bring us through this temporary\nperiod of economic dislocation to a sound fiscal base where such measures\nwill no longer be needed. In the meantime thank heaven we have been able\nto meet our problems without mass layoffs and even salary cuts which have\nbeen proposed in some states.\n- 5 -\nState Men's and Women's Club\nOne of the main 1 sons for the national ecol nic slump is the\ntransition from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy.\nThis transition\nthe aerospace cutbacks\nand the other related\nadjustments have contributed to our fiscal squeeze. Our revenues simply\nhaven't grown in the amounts necessary to cover the increasing cost of\ngovernment, including welfare and Medi-Cal.\nThe only sensible thing to do in such a situation is to try to\nd\ndown spending and to get on with long-deferred reforms in welfare,\nMedi-Cal and California's tax structure.\nAs you know, we have been vigorously opposed on some of the reforms\nwe have proposed. When anyone suggests a drastic change of direction in\nany government program, there is opposition. I am sure many of you have\nbeen through similar periods before in your careers.\nBut I would like to point out one significant fact to you: no\nreasonable person in this state Democrat, Republican or Independent\nhas argued that welfare reform is not needed. There is as close to a\nunanimous concensus on this as it may ever be possible to achieve.\nThe arguments instead are over cost formulas and whether a particula\nreform will save this much or that much.\nThese are not substantial differences. I have repeatedly made casar\nmy administration's determination to work with the legislature, the\ncounties and with all concerned parties to achieve a goal we all seek\na realistic welfare system that is fair to those who receive public\nassistance, to the citizens who must finance it and to the ployees who\nadminister it.\nOnly when we achieve these reforms will we be able to have orderly\nbudgeting SC that all the other essential state programs including\nsalary adjustments may at last receive the financial priority they\ndeserve.\nCalifornia has mat challenge before. This is the state where men\ndare to dream great dreams. If we can send a man to the moon, we can\nclean up our backyards. We can stop polluting our own air and water.\nWe can move forward to meet the neads of our people in environment\nprograms in education in transportation planning. Purblem-solving is\nthe business of government. That is our purpose yours and mine.\nI could go on longer than time permits with the record of your\naccomplishments in these past four years. The per capita cost to end\ntaxpayer of the cost of state government has been reduced, Many\ndepartments have absorbed 30 and 40 percent work load increases and at\nthe same time increased their ability to do the job with no enlargement\nof staff.\nOur prison rehabilitation and parole system sees California with\nfewer inmates in our state prisons than we had ten years ago. Honor\ncamps for juvenile offenders are being closed down because there is no\nneed for them, thanks to the probation program we have in cooperation wit\nthe counties. The list is long and impressive and Californians can be\nproud.\nIf we work together, with understanding, we can solve every problem\nand lay the foundation for the better tomorrow that we all want for\nCalifornia.\n#\n#\n#\n#\n#\n#\n(NOTE:\nSince\nGovernor\nReagan\nspeaks\nthe\nthe\n5/22\n5\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERI\n:\nRELEASE:\nS\nDAY A.Ms.\nSacramento, California\nMay 23, 1971\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n5-20-71\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\n100th ANNIVERSARY DINNER\nLOS ANGELES COUNTY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION\nMay 22, 1971\nIf you have had time to read the newspapers or watch television,\nyou know we are in the busy season in Sacramento. We have been engaged\nin a dialogue about a lot of important matters, including some that\nvitally affect your profession.\nThe most important struggle involves the reforms we hope to make in\nwelfare and Medi-Cal.\nAlmost every reasonable person in and out of government agrees that\nsomething is drastically wrong with our system of public assistance, not\nonly in California, but throughout the nation. In cost and caseload,\nwelfare is like the mythical monster which grew another arm every time\none was sliced off.\nThis year, the cost of public assistance and Medi-Cal will reach a\ntotal of $3.5 billion in California. Almost 2½ million persons one out\nof every nine citizens is receiving some sort of walfare benefit.\nWithout reform another 600,000 people will be on the rolls by the\nmiddle of next year\nand that will make it one out of seven.\nWelfare's staggering financial burden is pushing state and county\ngovernments to the brink of bankruptcy. The system is so overloaded, so\nbound up in red tape and so restricted by confusing and sometimes absurd\nregulations that it is on the point of total collapse.\nOur citizens do not lack compassion for the poor. They have given\nmore of their resources in cash and other material assistance to help the\nneedy at home and overseas than any other society in man's history.\nBut they have lost faith in the public assistance program we have\ntoday. Those who have always had to work for a living themselves cannot\nunderstand why a voluntarily unemployed drop-out is able to sneer at\nsociety yet receive food stamps that were intended to help the truly\nneedy.\nThey cannot understand federally-mandated regulations which allow\none family with an income of $7,200 a year to be on public assistance\ncollecting the same amount of welfare as another family of the same size\nwhich has no income at all or that people earning $12,000 or even $14,000\na year can also qualify for welfare. But above all they cannot understand\nwhy the overwhelming majority of truly poor who would like to be self-\nsupporting are seemingly sentenced to permanent dependence on the dole,\nand they have a suspicion someone must be trying deliberately to keep\nit that way.\nLos Angeles County Medical Assoc.\nIn your own field of interest, many people annot understand why\nworking citizens must finance for those on welfare an array of health\ncare benefits two to three times greater than the basic health benefits\nthey can afford for their own families. After four years of trying to\nreform welfare and Medi-Cal one or two steps at a time\nafter a seven\nmonth task force study of this entire problem we have come to the\nconclusion that the inequities in welfare and Medi-Cal, the built-in\nfinancial instability of public assistance cannot be cured with shots\nmajor surgery is called for.\nAnd that is what we have proposed. California enacted Medi-Cal in\n1966 as part of the federal Medicaid program. Unlike private health\ninsurance plans, no limit was set on any service. Medi-Cal goes far\nbeyond the benefits offered by the most comprehensive private health\ninsurance plans.\nOne California newspaper estimated that to provide these types of\noptional services totally free in addition to basic health care, a non-\nwelfare family of four would have to pay a yearly premium of $2,000\nif they could find an insurance company reckless enough to offer such\npolicy.\nBy the spring of 1967--only nine months after it was launched an-\nduring our first few months in Sacramento-we made the discovery that this\nhastily passed program (Medi-Cal) was already far beyond its projected\nbudget and rocketing into space totally out of control. We have been\ntrying to stabilize it into a predictable financial orbit ever since.\nWe have worked out some of the management snarls that kept providers\nof service waiting six months or more for payment in the early days of\nthe program. But not even a computer can solve the financial problems\ncaused by Medi-Cal's almost unlimited benefits, the explosion in the\nwelfare caseload, and over utilization of the services provided.\nAs you know, everyone who is on welfare is automatically eligible\nfor Medi-Cal, too. In addition, the program provides totally free\nbenefits to the medically needy those who have some income but who\ncannot afford the additional cost of their own medical care.\nA total of 2.4 million people are eligible for Medi-Cal this year\nat a cost of about $1.3 billion.\n- 2 -\nL.A. County Medical SOC.\nCourt decisions periodically add thousands of new people to the\nrolls by changing regulations or eliminating some of the restraints that\nused to allow us to more accurately predict what next year's budget\nwould be. But no one has invented a computer which could have predicted\nthat the U.S. Supreme Court would eliminate California's one-year\nresidency requirement for welfare or similar waiting periods that were\nin effect in 40 states prior to 1969.\nThis year, because of that ruling, about 60,000 persons who would\nnot have been eligible under the previous residency rule are on the\nwelfare rolls in California at a total cost of some $55 million. The\nSupreme Court said a residency requirement interferes with a welfare\nrecipient's right-to-travel. And so instant welfare became the law of\nthe land.\nNone of this is a fault of the health care industry. But some for\ntheir own reasons would have us believe otherwise.\nYour efforts to provide for the health care needs of all our\nmost\ncitizens\nwithin severe cost limitations\nhas been gratifying. Fees\nbeing paid to doctors today under Medi-Cal are 7 percent less than they\nwere five years ago.\nHippocrates advised physicians to \"sometimes give your services for\nnothing.\" Contrary to what some of you may have heard we have not gone\nquite that far in Medi-Cal. But last December, we did come to a day of\nreckoning.\nMany of you may not be clear on just why we had to take the action\nwe did to bring the Medi-Cal budget into control. Although Dr. Earl Brian\nand I appreciate all the attention in all candor we must share the\ncredit for the December cutbacks with the legislature.\nAs governor, I had no discretion. I was required by law to put\nthese cuts and restrictions into effect to avoid having the entire\nMedi-Cal program grind to a complete stop before the end of the fiscal\nyear.\nSome of those who protested the cuts the loudest were legislators\nwho would be all things to all people. Never once have they mentioned\nthat our action was in obedience to the law they passed in 1968. The\nfirst cutback that must be made when Medi-Cal overruns its budget is a\ntemporary 10 percent reduction of fees to physicians and other health\ncare providers\nexcept for hospitals.\n- 3 -\nL.A. County Medical Assoc.\nThe next step is to postpone all non-emergency and non-essential\nhealth care services that may be safely deferred without seriously\nendangering life. Those are the steps we took. Let me interject when\nthe legislature adopted this rigid system for meeting any future fiscal\ncrisis, we were opposed. We had asked for some flexibility some way\nto meet such a situation administratively without being tied to\ninflexible mandates.\nThe legislation adopted over our protests is our only tool and it\nauthorizes still a third cut if the steps already taken fail to\neliminate the deficit. The third step, which we have not taken, calls\nfor dropping almost a quarter of a million people in the medically\nneedy category from the program entirely.\nInstead, we have tried to spread the available funds to cover as\nmuch of the basic and essential health care that we can possibly cover\nwithin the law for almost 2½ million people. We had no other realistic\nchoice except to go on with this ill-conceived program and at the\nsame time ask the people for more taxes.\nThe national economic slump\nwhich affected state revenues\nalso\naffected our citizens. They are caught between inflation, unemployment\nand reduced earnings. It seems totally unreasonable for us to ask the\nlegislature for more money knowing it could only be obtained by higher\ntaxes.\nSolving the financial problems of Medi-Cal requires actions that are\nnot directly involved with the health care industry which provides the\nservices authorized under Medi-Cal. It requires us to completely change\nthe upward growth of welfare caseloads in California, It is the welfare\ncaseload that determines how many Medi-Cal patients you must serve.\nDr. Brian is doing a tremendous job coping with the management\nproblems of such a massive program. But he has no control whatsoever\nover the number of patients who must be served.\nIt is virtually an open-ended program. And no end to this growth is\nin sight until we restore a little realism to welfare with rules tha\ndirect assistance to those who really need help the most. Only when we\nhave realistic eligibility standards will we stabilize the caseload\ngrowth and put an end to the periodic financial problems of Medi-Cal.\nIn the meantime, we have to keep the system operating and solvent\nwithin rules that we know are totally unrealistic and unfair.\n- 4 -\nL.A. County Medical SSOC,\nWe know there is a lot of red tape involved in prior authorization\ntoo much.\nBy your professional oath, you are sworn to offer your services to\nall who need treatment. The physician is pledged to enter the houses\nof the sick to heal.\nYou should not and cannot be expected to serve as a punch-card\npoliceman to determine whether the patient is legally eligible for care\nunder Medi-Cal.\nThe job of deciding who is eligible should be done before the\npatient ever seeks treatment, And that is a job for the government which\nauthorized the program, and which has an obligation to establish a system\nthat will allow you to use your time to practice your profession to\nheal the sick.\nUnder the present system, this red tape, all the forms and screening\nprocedures are the only restraints we have to keep some degree of fiscal\ncontrol over Medi-Cal. And we are required by law to impose these\nrestraints.\nBut we don't like it. We want to develop a simplified system that\nwill cut away as much of this red tape as possible that will allow the\nphysician maximum freedom to exercise his own professional judgment in\ncaring for the sick.\nEvery day, Medi-Cal spends approximately $4 million providing health\ncare for the poor. And every day Earl Brian receives some 400 complaints.\nwritten and verbal about various aspects of a program that involves\nseventy thousand individual physicians, hospitals and other health care\nproviders. Multiply this by the number of claims that can be expected\nfrom a patient population of almost 2½ million and you can get some idea\nof the administrative complexity and sheer volume involved in managing\nMedi-Cal.\nBriefly, the reform program we have proposed would:\n-Establish a uniform basic schedule of Medi-Cal benefits, including\nfull coverage for hospital costs and full coverage for physicians'\nservices. This basic schedule will allow up to four outpatient visits\nto physicians every month. It will provide a full 365 days per year of\nnursing care, laboratory and X-ray benefits, prescription drugs up to\ntwo per month and 65 days of fully-paid hospitalization per year.\n- 5 -\nL.A. County Medical Assoc.\nWe also propose 0 transfer 800,000 \"medically indigent\" persons\ninto the state's basic plan and thereby relieve the counties of a\nsubstantial cost burden that has contributed to higher local property\ntaxes.\n/token\nPossibly the most publicized part of the program involves co-payment.\nWith this provision, every person with outside resources, except the\ntotally destitute, would pay $1 per visit to the doctor or dentist;\n$1 per drug prescription and pair of eyeglasses.\nSuch a system is absolutely essential to curtail over-utilization\nand it is not unreasonable.\nEvery major private health insurance plan requires the person\nreceiving the health benefit to pay at least a small deductible\nor\nco-payment. Most of those are far more expensive than the token $1\nco-payment we have proposed.\nIt is an accepted part of Medicare. Even the former labor\ngovernment in Britain found it necessary to impose some health care\nsurcharges to avoid bankrupting that country's system of socialized\nmedicine.\nWe believe this basic program will meet health care needs of 90\npercent of our needy citizens. The rest would be met through a\nsupplementary schedule of benefits to be financed by the counties and\nadministered at the local level, under state supervision. This\nsupplemental schedule of benefits will provide those additional services\nthat a patient requires over and above those he qualifies for every year\nunder the state's basic plan.\nThese reforms, plus the changes we have proposed in welfare, will\nsave the counties more than $100 million a year\nthe cost to the state\nwill be cut by more than $200 million and the federal share will be cut\nby at least $300 million.\nThe main goals of our welfare reforms are simple.\nWe want to separate the elderly, the permanently disabled and the\nblind from the welfare structure entirely. We think their monthly cash\ngrants should be distributed through a pension system similar to Social\nSecurity. There is no need for a social worker to drop by to see if a\nsenior citizen is still getting older.\n- 6 -\nL.A. County Medical ssociation\n--By separating out the unemployables, those remaining can be\nviewed as temporarily unemployed. Most of these will be in the AFDC\ncategory. Able-bodied adults will be required to be either seeking a\njob, training for a job or participating in a public work force as a\ncondition for receiving further welfare.\nA humane society has an obligiation to help everyone find the path\nto self-sufficiency. But society does not owe a lifetime annuity to\nthose who will not even take the first step. Those who refuse to work,\nto train for employment or to take part in the public assistance task\nforce will be denied further welfare assistance.\nWe also want to implement other necessary reforms a realistic\nincome ceiling to limit the amount of outside income a family may have\nand remain eligible for welfare. And since that ceiling would be 1½\ntimes a family's basic needs, our proposal can hardly be termed lacking\nin compassion. But such a limitation would put an end to the high\nincome family on welfare.\nEveryone in this room has a vital stake in welfare reform- either\nas someone whose profession is vitally affected by welfare or as a\ntaxpayer.\nWe need your help in putting these reforms into effect and we need\nyour help in carrying them out.\nIt is no secret that we have not always received a 100-gun salute\nfrom all segments of the health care industry. We are a little puzzled\nwhen we discover your state association is announcing some pro-rata\nreduction in fees while they are suing us for our cutbacks, even though\nthe law required us to do it. We hope this action by your spokesmen in\nSacramento does not express your feeling about our administration. We\nare going to need each other in the days ahead.\nOne problem that has become a critical one for the physician is the\nsteep rise in the cost and availability of professional liability\ninsurance. The need to protect against possible legal liability causes\nsome physicians to feel obliged to order more tests and more medical\nprocedures than may really be required.\nThis is a serious problem for your profession. It is a serious\nproblem for the public. I repeat to you tonight what I have told your\nrepresentatives- I am prepared to support any legislation that offers\na reasonable prospect of solving the liability insurance problem in the\npractice of medicine.\n- 7 -\nL.A. County Medical Assoc.\nThere are some People in and out of government who would like\nnothing better than for government to have an iron grip on the entire\nmedical field to have total bureaucratic control even over decisions\nthat have always been regarded as matters solely within the professional\njudgment of the individual physician.\nRegardless of the false case the proponents of socialized medicine\nmake for this unholy intrusion into the practice of the healing arts,\nyou and I know that it has reduced the quality of medicine wherever it\nhas been tried. Here in this nation, we have the highest level of\nmedical care to be found anywhere in the world. In spite of this, the\nfree practice of your profession is in greater danger than it has ever\nbeen.\nThe Kennedy proposal for socialized medicine, which he says will cost\n$77 billion the first year, is the culmination of these years of foot in\nthe door encroachment by those who have been determined from the first to\nsubstitute government control for individual freedom. Make no mistake\nabout it, this measure will make you government employees, not\nindependent professionals. As for the cost, their estimates are far too\nlow and, one cannot help but think, intentionally so.\nUnfortunately, years of propaganda, aided and abetted now by\ninflation, have misled many of our people. You know that the recent\nsharp inflation in medical and hospital costs involve a great variety of\ncomplex factors. But the average citizen knows only that his hospital\nand doctor bills are a lot higher today than they used to be. And that\nit is getting harder and harder to pay. It is our job to try to keep\nthose costs from becoming an ussible burden for a citizen to meet\nthrough his own resources or through the health insurance available to\nhim through private health plans.\nAt the same time, we have a monumental task in giving that citizen\nthe facts about socialized medicine. It's hidden costs, greater than\nanything he now pays, and the decline in quality of care that accompanies\nsocialized medicine everywhere it has been tried. Perhaps with the\ntruth we can make our people see that you cannot socialize the doctor\nwithout socializing the patient.\n#####\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be additions\nto or changes in the above text. However, the governor will\nstand by the above quotes.)\n- 8 -\nthe the\n5/\n5/24\nA.MS.\nSacramento, Californi\nMay\n5, 1971\nContact:\nPaul Bec\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\n445-4571\n5-24-71\nRELEASE.\nEXCERTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nWELFARE REFORM RALLY\nSacramento Memorial Auditorium\nMay 24, 1971\nWe need your energies and your influence in helping achieve welfare\nreform. There is no need to remind this audience why welfare reform is\nnecessary. We need to reduce the cost of welfare and bring reform to\npublic assistance for a host of reasons, each of which is important.\nBut one of the most important reasons is the simple fact that our people\ncan no longer afford the cost of a welfare program that increases by a\nquarter or even a third every year.\nThe federal government recently announced that the number of people\non welfare in the United States is now approaching 14 million. In\nCalifornia, one out of every nine citizens is on welfare and one program\nalone Aid to Families with Dependent Children---grew 39 percent in\ncaseload last year while the cost went up 42 percent.\nThe same story is repeated across the country, in every state and\nevery urban county. Welfare threatens to bankrupt state and local\ngovernments unless something is done.\nThis year, California has almost 2½ million people drawing some\ntype of welfare or Medi-Cal assistance at a total cost of 3½1/2 billion\ndollars. And unless the growth trend is reversed with more realistic\nregulations, another 600,000 will be on the rolls by the end of July 1972\nIf that happens, instead of one out of every nine citizens on welfare,\nit will be one out of seven.\nWe cannot afford the financial burden this would mean to our working\ncitizens. But in a more basic sense, California and the United States\ncan no longer afford the moral and spiritual disintegration that the\nwelfare system is subsidizing in California and other states. No one\ndisputes the legitimate obligation of society to care for the helpless\nwho have nowhere to turn for assistance,\nBut the complex system we have now has become hopelessly bogged down\nin bureaucracy, bound by unnecessary red tape and discredited by abuses\nwhich permit the diversion of welfare funds to some people who earn more\nthan many of our working citizens.\n- 1 -\nWelfare Rally\nThe most tragic sequence is that welfare has failed the very\npurpose for which it was established. Because our resources are stretched\nso thin, welfare is failing to provide sufficiently for those who need\nhelp the most the elderly, the blind who cannot work, the permanently\ndisabled and the family with little or no income and very little job\npotential. Such people need a helping hand, not a permanent handout\nsentencing them to a lifetime on the dole.\nIt is not that our people refuse to help those legitimately in need.\nBut they have watched welfare particularly the AFDC program grow\ninto a permanent way of life for millions of Americans. The organized\nleaders of the \"professional poor\" look upon welfare as an acceptable\nlife-long career...and those who lead them view mass poverty as their own\npolitical power base.\nWorking citizens struggling to raise their own families have\nsimply lost faith in the present welfare system. And who can blam\nwhen the newspapers carry articles almost every day detailing some new\nkind of welfare abuse, inefficiency or fraud?\nThere are those who say that welfare reform cannot be handled at the\nlocal or state level. They say we must turn it over to the federal\ngovernment. I do not agree. I do not agree because some of the worst\nabuses you have read and heard about are the direct result of unreasonablo,\nunrealistic federal regulations that become distorted by the time they are\napplied to individual cases.\nLet me give you just one example:\nA few years ago, the federal government came up with some new welfare\nregulations that were supposed to encourage welfare recipients to work\nand stay on a job after they found one.\nThe idea was fine. But after the bureaucracy went to work on a way\nto accomplish this, an abuse known as the \"$30 and One Third Formula\" was\nthe result, Here is how this works:\nSuppose an AFDC family of four is receiving a cash monthly grant of\n$221, Medi-Cal benefits worth $1,127 a year for a family of four, bonus\nGood stamps which stretch the family's food purchasing dollar, free\nschool lunches and similar fringe benefits.\nThen the male or female breadwinner finds 7 job paying $600 a month\nor $7,200 a year.\n- 2 -\nwellare Rally\nThe federal regulacion enables the family to exempt the first $30\nof the monthly salary plus one-third of the remaining gross. In\ndetermining whether the family may still get public assistance, the wage-\nearner also may deduct such other \"work-related\" expenses as union dues,\nchild care costs, uniforms, transportation costs (including payments on\na new car), $25 a month in miscellaneous personal expenses. Even the\nwage-earner's federal income and social security taxes are deductible.\nIt is entirely possible under this formula to reduce the family's \"net\"\nincome down to zero, leaving it eligible for the same benefits it\nreceived before, when it had no income at all.\nThat means the total combined earnings and welfare grant becomes\n$9,852 for a family of four, plus food stamps, Medi-Cal benefits worth\nanother $1,127 a year, free school lunches and whatever other benefits\nthey might discover with the help of the local social worker and\nfederally-financed legal aid society.\nThis is the kind of unrealistic welfare rule that enables the\nthousand dollar a month income family to be on welfare and remain eligible\nfor benefits. Indeed, I have used a $1,000 a month income in the example\nI just used, and the answer was the same---full welfare eligibility.\nFurthermore, the whole concept of federal revenue sharing is an open\nadmission that programs as vast and complex as welfare cannot be\neffectively administered from Washington. In his revenue sharing proposal\nthe president made it plain he believed that with the federal funds should\ncome full state and local responsibility for the programs utilizing those\nfunds.\nOne of the reasons why WE the so strongly opposed to the idea of a\nguaranteed income is because it would be only the first installment,\nregardless of the starting figure. Raising the annual family grant would\nbecome an election-year must.\nSome of the more eager advocates of a guaranteed income make no bones\nabout their goal. A few weeks ago, a group of congressmen who support\nthe National Welfare Rights Organization put in a bill that would provide\na guaranteed annual income of sixty five hundred dollars 3 year To give\nless, they say, would undermine the rights of poor people.\nThey never mention what seizing another 60 billion dollars a year in\ntaxes would do to the rights of working citizens; some of whom do not even\nearn sixty five hundred dollars a year themselves.\n- 3 -\nencse of you who ive followed the welfare d ate know why so many\nstate and local officials advocate a federal takeover.\nMany governors and local officials are simply desperate to get rid\nof their most crushing financial problem.\nBut it will not be solved by turning to Washington, or by patch-work\nregulations. Instead, we must overhaul the existing system in a way that\nwill provide true welfare reform, eliminate the abuses and ultimately\nreduce the cost to the working citizen.\nThat is what we propose to do in California. Many of you already\nare familiar with the welfare reform program. But I would like to just\nbriefly take a moment to touch on some of the highlights and the\nphilosophy behind it.\nOne of the main goals is to restore dignity to the lives of the\nelderly, blind and disabled. These groups of deserving citizens are\nreally pensioners and they should not be regarded as just another entry\nin a social worker's casebook. We want to send them their monthly checks\nthrough an automated system similar to Social Security. With the savings\nthat this kind of system and our other reforms will realize, ultimately\nwe hope to improve their pensions in addition to providing the regular\ncost-of-living increases they receive now.\nThen we want to cut through the maze of welfare regulations and law\nand tighten up every one that has been translated into an abuse. We want\nto give counties a greater incentive to track down the 230,000 California\nfathers who have deserted their families and are not contributing to their\nchildren's support. Any child support collected would greatly reduce the\ncost of welfare in California. Just $75 a month from half of those\nfathers would save more than $100 million.\nWe want to terminate welfare aid to illegal aliens\neliminate food\nstamp eligibility for able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 65\nincluding the voluntarily unemployed hippies who sneer at society while\nthey stand in the check-out line clutching food stamps that are intended\nto help feed the deserving poor.\nwas want to <lamp a realistic ceiling on the amount of spendable\nicoma = family can have and still remain eligible for welfare\nthis\nwould put an end to the possibility that families earning one thousand\ndollars, twelve hundred or even more per month could also qualify for\nwelfare.\n- 4 -\nweirare Rally\nOur program would ave the state assume the ire cost of\nautomated payments of the pension program for the elderly, blind and the\npermanently disabled. With these tighter eligibility standards and other\nreforms, we will be able to save an estimated $566 to $836 million a year\nin state, federal and local taxes.\nAnd by streamlining the administration of welfare eliminating the\npresent abuses and reducing or eliminating the grants to those who have\nsignificant outside income, we can restore equity to the system and\nimprove the benefits for the truly needy those families who suffer most\nfrom the regulations that allow employed people to receive welfare\nbenefits intended for the poor.\nThis can be ended by adopting a realistic cutoff point beyond which\nsupplemental welfare ends. And to those shedding crocodile tears over\nour inhumanity to man, we intend that ceiling on earnings to be 1½ times\na family's basic requirements.\nThere is another reform we propose to do the most important\nreform of all. We intended to require that able-bodied welfare recipients\neither work, be training for a job or take part in a public assistance\ntask force. Those who refuse will be denied further welfare aid.\nNow I know that is a radical idea to some sociologists and poverty\nexperts. We have already been greeted by their howls of outrage. They\nregard poverty as an industry and they want to be captains of the\nindustry. They want to run not only welfare, but the lives of the\nwelfare recipients.\nWhy, we have even been accused of wanting to restore the \"work ethic\"\nin America. Well, that is exactly what we do want to do; restore the\nethic that has been lost these past 30 years when people started trading\ntheir dignity for a dole.\nSuch a welfare work force could do many constructive things to\nbenefit the society that is supporting them. They could be school monitor\nand guards to protect children against violence and property against\nvandalism. They could help in anti-litter cleanup and recycling projects\nto improve the environment.\nSome could take care of children so that other welfare recipients\nwould be free to engage in job training or could work.\nOpponents of this work requirement often say that most of the 1.6\nmillion AFDC recipients are children. And they are right. But more than\n380,000 are adults women and men most of them, are able-bodied.\n- 5 -\nExcept for the caler welfare recipient, work is not a strange or\nradical idea in America. According to the U.S. Department of Labor,\nalmost half of America's mothers with children under 17 and in school\nare now working to help support their families, and 37 percent of them\nhave children under five years of age. Should these working mothers be\nforced to help support those who do not work or who refuse to take part\nin training efforts to become employable?\nOf course, we know not every welfare mother will be able to work.\nBut many of them could. And for every able-bodied adult welfare\nrecipient who finds work at a wage sufficient to support his family\nthe welfare rolls decline not by one but by the whole family. And,\ncontrary to what some believe the overwhelming majority of welfare\nrecipients want more than anything else to be able to support themselves.\nWe must change AFDC into a temporary helping hand. Instead of\nregarding everyone as a permanent public dependent, we must look upon\nwelfare as a way-station en route to a permanent job and the dignity of\nself-sufficiency.\nFor some reason, certain legislative leaders prefer to raise taxes\non the working citizens of our state rather than take effective action\nto implement the reforms we all know are so necessary in welfare. The\nstarted talking about the necessity for new taxes before they even saw\nour proposal for saving costs through welfare reform. A recent poll\nshowed that 64 percent of our citizens wanted tax reductions and a cut in\ngovernment spending now and were willing to support a taxpayers revolt\nif necessary a refusal to pay taxes.\nUsing the present economic Blump as an excuse. these same individuals\nproduced their own version of the new math last Their first\npronouncement was one of fiscal crisis \"tax revenues would be $160\nmillion less than anticipated!\" So they added $318 million to the budget.\nAs for our welfare reform, they have also raised the false issue of\na CORD burden on the counties. I have repeatedly assured the counties\nthat if our estimate of the savings that may be realized through welfare\nreform prove overly optimistic, then the state will adjust its share to\nguarantee that there will be no additional cost burden on the counties.\nBut the truth is, there will be millions of dollars of savings\nthe state\nwill assume a tremendous administrative cost burden that counties now bear\nand we will take over the basic medical costs for 800, 000 people whose\nhealth care now is totally a burden on local property taxpayers. And, to\ninsure savings to the counties, we offered three amendments last week\nwhich should result in $150 million of reduced county costs.\n- 6 -\nwelfare Rally\nThe State of California and its legislators have an obligation to\nget on with the task of welfare reform this year\nthe counties have\nasked for welfare reform\nevery reasonable person who knows anything at\nall about the program knows that we cannot go on as we have been going\nin public assistance.\nForty-seven hundred bills have been introduced in the legislature\nthis year. Yet along with the budget bill itself, and tax reform, none\nare more important than welfare reform.\nWe are paying too great a price for welfare now not only in\ndollars, but in the destruction of the standards of individual and\nfamily responsibility that created our society.\nIt is totally repugnant to the American philosophy to accept the\nidea of a permanent and growing poverty population to be supported\nindefinitely at ever increasing cost.\nTo do so repudiates and undermines the very basis of America's\ngreatness. Our society offers everyone the chance to climb as high and\ntravel as far as his own talents and energy and work can allow him to\nclimb.\nThose who will not take the first step cannot expect society to\nsupport them forever.\nWe know you share this philosophy.\nUnfortunately, some of our\nlegislators do not. While we welcome your letters of support, you know\nMiere we stand. So if I may close on this note, please tell others\nwhere you stand\nwrite to your Assemblyman\nyour state Senator\nyour\nCongressman\nespecially those who are not already pledged to support\nthis welfare reform program. You must fill the corridors of the Capitol\nas do the special interest pleaders when their little empires are\nthreatened.\nLet them know that Californians are no longer willing to subsidize\nthe present chaotic welfare system. Let them know that working citizens\nof California demand realistic welfare reform.\nIn closing, let me suggest an answer to those who are now ducking\nthe issue of welfare reform by claiming that Congress has preempted the\nfield by passing Chairman Mills' (House Ways and Means Committee) welfare\nbill out of committee, so there is no need for state action. There is no\nguarantee the Senate will accept this bill, and if they do it will not\ngo into effect according to Congressman Mills, until fiscal 1973! Our\nJoblem is now.\nEven the Secretary of HEW has expressed the hope that our reform\nwill be passed because of the information they will have as to the\neffectiveness of some of our proposals.\n#\n#\n#\n#\n#\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be additions\nto or changes in the above text. However, the governor will\nstand by the above quotes.)\n- 7 -\n96/5\nand *\n-\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE:\nThur\n1y A.M.B\nHOOVER WST\nSacramento, California\nMay 27\nContact: Paul Beck\n445-4571\n5-25-71\nARCHIVES\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nLos Angeles County Bar Association\nLos Angeles\nMay 26, 1971\nI am grateful for an opportunity to discuss with you some of the\ncritical problems the legal profession must help solve if we are to\nprotect and preserve this tiny clearing in the jungle we call\ncivilization.\nSometimes I am shocked at how easily that sentence comes, indeed,\nhow much of a cliche it has become. And I find myself, as I am sure\nyou do, asking how has it come about that we must feel such concern\nfor civilization as we have known it.\nIt begins when parents allow their children to mock their elders\nand to ignore the most basic standards of civilized conduct. It\ncarries over into school and it reaches into the very citadels of\njustice--the courtroom--where a judge is no longer immune to calculated\nmockery and even physical harm.\nLast year when I spoke to the State Bar Association, I said we in\nCalifornia--and indeed in the United States--are faced with a mounting\ncrisis of confidence in the administration of criminal justice. That\nwas hardly original with me.\nThe crisis is most evident to the layman by what he views as a\ndeliberate and often successful attempt to thwart justice. The\nConstitutional guarantee of a speedy trial--written into law to protect\nthe defendant--has in our criminal courts become an anacronism. The\nlong and unnecessary delays between arrest and a final conviction, the\nendless appeals of questionable merit, the resort to legal gimmicks\ninvolving technical and procedural rules--all these practices deprive\nsociety of its right to expect a speedy disposal of criminal matters.\nInstead of battling to win an early hearing of the evidence\nto win\nacquittal on the facts\ndelay has become a goal in itself, a way for\nthe defense not to assure justice, but to prevent it.\nThere is an even greater threat to the dignity of our legal\nsystem. It is the growing tendency for the client himself to become\nthe boss in the courtroom, to stage-manage his own defense with\ndisrespectful and contemptuous conduct toward the court. This, too,\nis deliberate on the part of modern revolutionaries. It is copied from\nthe young thugs of the Hitler era. The purpose is to prove that under\nstress, the system won't work.\nThere is an additional crisis in the processing of civil cases\n(\nlong delays in trials and appeals and the ever increasing costs of\ncourt administration these things compound the challenge to our\nlegal system.\nIt does not appear that the legislature is inclined to make any\nsignificant improvements in the judicial system this session.\nI don't mean to give the impression that nothing is being done\nabout all these problems. Last year I urged the legal profession and\nthe judiciary to clean its own house. Since then:\nThe Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Donald R.\nWright, a distinguished former member of your own local bar, has\nappointed a Select Committee on Trial Court Delay. The purpose is\nobvious from the title. It is to examine the judicial process from\nthe first filing of a case, or charge, to the final appeal and to\nrecommend ways to eliminate the log-jam in our trial courts.\nThis group is funded by the California Council on Criminal Justice\nand includes three judges, three lawyers and three laymen. There are\nliaison members from my office and the legislature. Thus, all three\nbranches of state government will participate in this study. We are\nto have a report with recommendations for major changes by next March 15.\nThe urgency of solving overcrowded criminal calendars is best\nemphasized by the situation here in Los Angeles County where the\nSuperior Courts ended the year with 62,000 legal matters still on the\ndocket. This massive backlog was documented by a study group from your\nown Superior Court, in a report that contains 39 specific recommenda-\ntions for judicial reform and lists another 171 proposals for further\nstudy. I would like to commend the committee which assembled this\nimpressive study. This type of activity--within the legal profession\nitself--will help us find ways to speed up the judicial process without\nsacrificing any of the basic rights or protections of our legal\nsystem.\nNow it is up to you--members of this local bar--to evaluate each\nof the suggested changes and to determine which are desirable and\npractical-- not only for Los Angeles County, but for the entire state.\nThe Judicial Process Task Force of the California Council on\nCriminal Justice--chaired by my legal affairs secretary Herbert E.\nEllingwood--is sponsoring many other proposals. I would like to\nmention just a few.\n-2-\nAll of the profe onals in your field acknd edge that the\nefficient management of a court calendar is the key to success in\nreducing the number of delayed trials. Yet the trial courts have\nlittle control over the tide of incoming business.\nTo find ways to increase the efficiency of the courts, the council\nhas put a team of two trained experts to work full time with the\npresiding judge of Sacramento County's Superior Court. For at least\na year, they will seek practical means of increasing the efficiency\nof the courts through better calendar management.\nAnother such team has been approved for the Superior Court in\nSan Francisco. Both these teams will seek to develop new techniques\nthat can be applied statewide better scheduling systems that can\nwork for courts of various sizes.\nThis research is unique because the teams will conduct this court\nmanagement project in a pragmatic way with all the ongoing pressures\nof the present system in a day-to-day working environment. And it\nwill affect both civil and criminal courts.\nInformation on the progress of these two projects will be\nexchanged so that each can learn from the experience of the other\nand the overall program will be supervised by the Administrative\nOffice of the Courts.\nJudicial manpower is another practical problem. The Chief\nJustice-- as chairman of the Judicial Council--last year assigned\njudges to cover 1,325 days in the Appellate courts, 2,837 days in the\nSuperior Courts and 2,891 days in the municipal courts just to keep\nup with critical caseloads.\nCurrently we are helping finance the California College of Trial\nJudges every summer at Berkeley. I have encouraged each of my judicial\nappointees to attend this intensive two week course. And the Judicial\nCouncil has an active program of institutes to acquaint judges with\nnew problems they will be facing.\nOne such project which has received initial approval is on the\nProblems of Narcotics and Drug Abuse. Drug addiction is one of the\nmost critical social and legal problems of our time. To be effective,\njudges must keep up with new developments in this field.\nFor public defenders, we are sponsoring a project of the\nCalifornia Public Defenders Association. This will be an orientation\ncourse for an estimated 100 new deputy public defenders. We hope to\nmake this an annual course so that newly appointed public defenders\nwill receive a thorough understanding and appreciation of the total\nup for approval. Under this program, students will work in the offices\nof district attorneys and public defenders and perhaps can be used\nimmediately as para-professionals in the legal field.\nVarious means of automating the judicial process also are under\nway.\nOne suggestion is for witnesses to be \"on call\" until they are\nneeded. Policemen, for example, could be scheduled for duty near the\ncourthouse so that their professional time will be spent on the job\nuntil they are notified to appear in court.\nThe drive for judicial reform is wide-reaching and is going\nforward with many innovations that give promise of providing a more\nefficient court system.\nBefore I leave the subject, I would like to mention one federal\nproject. Last March, a National Conference on the Judiciary convened\nat Williamsburg, Virginia. That meeting may well prove to be the most\nimportant conference on the judicial system in this century.\nThe President, the Chief Justice of the United States and the\nAttorney General met with more than 40 state chief justices.\nThe challenge to the legal profession was issued by Chief Justice\nBurger. He told his colleagues that \"the American system of criminal\n(\njustice in every phase--the police function, the prosecution and\ndefense, the courts and the correctional machinery--is suffering from\na severe case of deferred maintenance\nfully documented by innumerable\nstudies and surveys.\"\nJustice Burger classified civil justice in the same way and urged\nthe establishment of immediate priorities.\nOne of those priorities is better state and federal cooperation.\nThe public is well aware of the various ways by which lawyers seek to\nget around the traditional judicial process. Shopping for a friendly\ncourt to accept a matter that should be the responsibility of a\ndifferent jurisdiction is as offensive and destructive of the judicial\nprocess as it is to shop for a judge.\nIt should not be permitted. It turns the courts into an arena for\nlegal badminton, a spectacle that makes justice a mockery to the\nlayman.\nThe crisis today provides a constructive climate for solving this\nparticular problem. Chief Justice Burger warned last December that the\n-4-\none\ndown\nor\nIt\nWill\ndeteriorate in quality\" before long unless the crushing burden of cases\nreferred to the nation's highest court is shifted to other courts.\nState and federal judicial councils have been strongly urged to find\nways to limit the number of cases transferred unnecessarily from state\nto federal courts.\nBut these are internal administrative corrections and while they\nare essential, they are only one part of the job that must be done to\nrestore the public's confidence in the courts.\nI will not dwell on the charge that is made that some courts and\nsome judges--all too frequently--view their role as acting as a\ncatalyst of social change rather than as a forum to administer justice\nand interpret laws. I could ask in this connection how many of you are\nuneasy with what seems to be a new teaching philosophy in too many law\nschools today.\nProbably the most visible barrier to courtroom efficiency are\nthose symptoms most visible to the layman.\nJury selection takes too long. Judges seem to be challenged more\nas a delay tactic than for legitimate cause. The disgraceful behavior\nof some defendants and the even more disgraceful conduct of some lawyers\nwho defend them are an affront to the entire legal profession. These\nantics reduce the dignity of the judicial process to the level of a\nstreet brawl shouting match.\nOur citizens are concerned about those judges who do not seem to\nhave adequate control in their own courts and they ask if the bar\nassociations are aggressively moving to discipline those who arrogantly\nviolate your own canons and the ethical standards of your profession.\nThe image projected by the bar is one of getting the criminal off\nrather than acting in a responsible way to assure both the rights of the\ndefendant and the rights of society to be protected against the\nlawbreaker.\nIn the area of search and seizure, the legal debates over police\nmethods long accepted as reasonable, appear to the public to be less of\na. quest for justice than a legal chess game with the law abiding\ncitizens as unwilling pawns in the contest.\nEdward Bennett Williams could hardly be regarded as an advocate of\nrepressive laws. Yet he has publicly criticized the legal system on\nmany points.\n-5-\nthe innocent defendants, to the honest policeman, (\nurban\ncriminal\ncourts have become a sham and a broken promise.\"\nThe victim of a crime finds it impossible to understand why a\ndefendant convicted of armed robbery by a court or jury-convicted\nbeyond a reasonable doubt--can forestall his day of reckoning for two\nyears or more.\nWe must redeem the promise of justice by reforming our legal\nsystem so that it will be in fact as well as in theory the mechanism\nby which we assure the Constitutional rights of all our citizens.\nAs officers of the court, you can help achieve this restoration---\nusing the same creativity, the same intense energy and the same\nprofessional pride with which you represent your best clients.\nThe legal profession itself must carry the main burden. Some\nvoluntary experiments already are under way.\nWhat I am suggesting is exactly what I told your colleagues last\nyear. You know the problems best. You are able to solve them best.\nThe answer cannot be just a simple plea for more judges.\nNow I don't want to leave the impression that our legal system is\nthe only cause for concern to the people. The public is frustrated\nwith government itself and its seeming inability to solve major\nproblems. The voice of reason is needed now--common sense answers\nbefore the voice of the demagogue makes it impossible for reason to be\nheard above his loud and easy promises.\nIn addition to an intolerable crime rate, we now are experiencing\na staggering increase in acts of violence carried out at random against\ninnocent victims\nall in the name of social or political protest.\nThe self-proclaimed revolutionaries and their legal champions\ndenounce the system yet they wrap themselves in the Constitution at\nevery step in legal proceedings that involve them.\nTo accept their idea of \"justice\" is to accept tyranny and anarchy.\nIf Moses himself stood on Nob Hill and solemnly intoned the Ten\nCommandments, he probably would be denounced as a reactionary seeking\nto impose a repressive and outmoded life style on the multitude. He\nwould be certain to wind up in a Conrad cartoon.\nNo one wants a legal system that is concerned only with arrests\nand quick convictions.\n-6-\nWhat every citiz wants--and what the syste should provide--is\na judicial process that offers a fair trial to every accused, an\nacquittal for the innocent; conviction for the guilty, and sentencing\nand appeals carried out swiftly--but within the framework of the\nConstitutional guarantees we all cherish.\nThis kind of fair and quick justice is not the practice today.\nAnd regrettably, many laymen do not even believe it is still a mission\nof the legal system.\nBut a fierce belief that right will prevail burns deeply within\nthe American consciousness. And the people expect you to help restore\ntheir shining dream of justice for all.\nCarl Sandburg summed up this faith in a poem called \"The People\nWill Live On.\" He described the American capacity for survival against\nthe greatest oppression, the meanest tyranny, and he told of man's\nenduring faith in a bright tomorrow when brotherhood would be a\nreality.\nMan will yet win (he wrote);\nBrother may yet line up with brother.\nUntil that day, we must have law. And we must respect the law\nand make it the highest expression of our civilization. It is your\njob and my job and the concern of everyone to make the bench and the\nbar an institution worthy of the respect that its noble traditions and\nits purpose deserve.\nYou have more to lose than anyone if we fail.\n# # #\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be additions\nto, or changes in the above text. However, the governor will\nstand by the above quotes)\n-7-\nADDENDUM TO REMARKS BY GOVERNOR REAGAN AT SAN DIEGO REPUBLICAN DINNER\nJu'y 23, 1971\nThirty-five years ago a President of the United States said that\nour generation had a rendezvous with destiny. It is possible\nthat we are living in that time of destiny right now. Our sons\nand daughters in this particular moment of history are coming\ninto their inheritance a few years early. We are proud and happy\nto have these young people here with us. But I wonder sometimes\nif we are really as disturbed and concerned as we should be\nthat the great majority of our young people seem to be registering\nwith the opposition party. Oh I know that a great many of them\nhave been indoctrinated in over a thousand classrooms. I suppose\nthe miracle really is the number who are still on our side\nwhen you consider the power of their peers at that age and the\nindoctrination to which they have been subjected. I wonder how\nthese young people who are here have managed to hold out the way\nthey have. Certainly they must have an extra strength of character\nand willpower that would make them a very valuable ally in the\ndays ahead. But right now you and I should be seeking them out\nand asking what have we done or what have we said, if anything,\nthat has helped them choose this course or stay on this course.\nOr did they do it all by themselves. We have a story as Republicans\nto tell and we haven't done a proper job of selling that story.\nIf we had, I think the majority of young people would be going\nour way. Hasn't the complaint of those younger generation in\nthese last few years of unrest been that they 're against materialism,\nthey 're against big impersonal government that's beyond their reach,\nthey 're against regimentation and imposition on their individual\nfreedom. They have a great idealism about the course a nation like\n8\n- / -\n9\nours should follow. But what do they think we have been against\nfor these last four decades. Materialism? Materialism that thinks\na full belly is excuse enough to justify keeping people on the dole\nfor the rest of their lives. Our opponents have built this giant\nbureaucratic government where regulations are spawned in multitudinous\nIn\nagencies, regulations that seem to have even more power than the laws\npassed by Congress. It is our opponents who built the cavernous\nhalls of government where the voice of the citizen echoes unheard\nand unheeded. Our sons and daughters have let us know they are\nagainst the establishment. Well, so are we. But can we make them\nunderstand that the establishment we are opposed to is a government?\nA government that is capable of great tyranny. That unless we control\nthis establishment, we shall become a nation of timid sheep dependent\non a shepherd. We're on the eve of another election and I wonder\nsometimes if we are approaching this challenge as we should or are\nwe as Republicans once again beset by doubts? Confused about our\nown leadership, wondering whether we've chosen correctly. I have\ntalked of the economic slump in our state but you all knew that\nthis economic slump is nationwide. But what has been its cause,\nVery simply, the transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy.\nA transition that has come about because for 2½ years a new President\nhas been winding down a war that was growing larger for eight years\nbefore he took office. Two and a half years ago we were talking\nabout long hot summers. We were accepting, even though we feared\nthem, the riots that were almost commonplace in our cities and on\nour campuses. Now, and in recent days, the President has made an\nannouncement that is disturbing to a great many of us. May I offer\nsome thoughts for your consideration before perhaps misgiving becomes\n-1/3\nRed China\nmistrust. With this announcement the President put himself where\n<\nthe loud mouths of his potential opponents have been for quite a\nfew months---in fact, for most of these two and a half years.\nWith his announcement he preempted the field worldwide. The President\nhas taken center stage as the one man who is trying to do something\n/\nbesides talk about peace. All of those peace-loving Senators have\nbeen very quiet for just about a week. They were busy revising\ntheir campaign speeches, but now they have discovered that in his\nannouncement the President made it plain that he had no intention\nof abandoning an old friend and ally, and suddenly they're beginning\nto make their noises again. I don't believe that if he were willing\n10\nto abandon this ally, this would fit with the idealism of the young\npeople we would like to appeal to. I think we all, before we becom (I\n30\ndisquieted, should remember that Dick Nixon among all the leaders\nof this nation has known perhaps better than most that the enemy is\nwhere he always has been, in Moscow.\nAnd, there is some evidence of this in the fact that the Kremlin\nhas been strangely quiet since that announcement. They can't make\nup their mind whether to send over a bomb or the Bolshoi ballet.\nWell, I have no information that the rest of you don't have but I\nwould like to offer some possibilities out of this new development\nbased on, I think, some knowledge of the men and knowledge of the\nsituation. For ten years, bullets and rockets and mortars and booby\ntraps made in China have been killing young Americans. The President\nhas made it plain that not only will we not abandon an ally---we will\nnot disengage from this war if the price means leaving even one young\nAmerican as a prisoner of the enemy. China holds prisoners of ours,\nairmen shot down in the air war over Laos who came down across the\nChinese border.\nChina has boasted that it is going to continue to hold those men.\nHas anyone suggested a better way to get them back than the President\nhas suggested--- by simply going there and at least getting into a\nconversation about getting them back? For decades we've heard\nconflicting voices talking about the inevitable Armageddon and other\nvoices on the other side saying that we should give in better Red\nthan dead, slavery of surrender. I think the President, cutting\nthrough the confusion, has made a bold and decisive move with no\nsuggestion or no hint that he has any intention of asking this\nnation to abandon either honor or principle. I believe that we\n- should insure that when the time comes, and the President goes there\nand in my own heart I believe that when that time comes, we will\nfind that all the matters of prisoners of war and cease fires, and\nan end of the killing in Vietnam have been tied together with this\nRed\nchina\nvisit I think that it would be well if he went there with the\nknowledge that he has the prayers of two hundred million in his\ncountry. I've taken the liberty of suggesting that perhaps these\nyoung people are here with us because they have made a decision. I\nthink it would be well if we recognized that perhaps these young\npeople are here looking us over. They are about to make a very\ndecided choice and it is up to us to prove by our actions that\nthere is much to love in this land very much to be proud of.\nTo those who say there is a communications gap, I will say to these\nyoung people that there has never been a time when an older generation\nwanted more to understand and be understood by its own sons and\ndaughters. This older generation has paid a higher price for\nfreedom than any people have ever paid in all man's history. And\nI think with some pride we can say we have done more in our lifetime\n1/2\nto advance the dignity of man than any other generation that\never lived. And, now very frankly we will tell you young people\nwe would be very proud to have you look us over look over our\nprinciples and decide whether you wouldn't rather join us than\njoin those who believe that mankind is incapable of governing\nitself that a little chosen elite can be picked and sit in t\nnation's capitol and make the decisions in our every day living\nthat we should make for ourselves. Or, whether you would like\nto go along with us who would like to see America become in your\nlifetime and ours, if possible, a place where every man is free\nto be whatever God intended him to be.\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE:\nThur\n1y\nA.M.s\nSacramento, California\nMay 27\nContact: Paul Beck\n445-4571\n5-25-71\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nLos Angeles County Bar Association\nLos Angeles\nMay 26, 1971\nI am grateful for an opportunity to discuss with you some of the\ncritical problems the legal profession must help solve if we are to\nprotect and preserve this tiny clearing in the jungle we call\ncivilization.\nSometimes I am shocked at how easily that sentence comes, indeed,\nhow much of a cliche it has become. And I find myself, as I am sure\nyou do, asking how has it come about that we must feel such concern\nfor civilization as we have known it.\nIt begins when parents allow their children to mock their elders\nand to ignore the most basic standards of civilized conduct. It\ncarries over into school and it reaches into the very citadels of\njustice the courtroom--where a judge is no longer immune to calculated\nmockery and even physical harm.\nLast year when I spoke to the State Bar Association, I said we in\nCalifornia and indeed in the United States. are faced with a mounting\ncrisis of confidence in the administration of criminal justice. That\nwas hardly original with me.\nThe crisis is most evident to the layman by what he views as a\ndeliberate and often successful attempt to thwart justice. The\nConstitutional guarantee of a speedy trial--written into law to protect\nthe defendant--has in our criminal courts become an anacronism. The\nlong and unnecessary delays between arrest and a final conviction, the\nendless appeals of questionable merit, the resort to legal gimmicks\ninvolving technical and procedural rules--all these practices deprive\nsociety of its right to expect a speedy disposal of criminal matters.\nInstead of battling to win an early hearing of the evidence\nto win\nacquittal on the facts\ndelay has become a goal in itself, a way for\nthe defense not to assure justice, but to prevent it.\nThere is an even greater threat to the dignity of our legal\nsystem. It is the growing tendency for the client himself to become\nthe boss in the courtroom, to stage-manage his own defense with\ndisrespectful and contemptuous conduct toward the court. This, too,\nis deliberate on the part of modern revolutionaries. It is copied from\nthe young thugs of the Hitler era. The purpose is to prove that under\nstress, the system won't work.\nThere is an additional crisis in the processing of civil cases\nlong delays in trials and appeals and the ever increasing costs of\ncourt administration these things compound the challenge to our\nlegal system.\nIt does not appear that the legislature is inclined to make any\nsignificant improvements in the judicial system this session.\nI don't mean to give the impression that nothing is being done\nabout all these problems. Last year I urged the legal profession and\nthe judiciary to clean its own house. Since then:\nThe Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Donald R.\nWright, a distinguished former member of your own local bar, has\nappointed a Select Committee on Trial Court Delay. The purpose is\nobvious from the title. It is to examine the judicial process from\nthe first filing of a case, or charge, to the final appeal and to\nrecommend ways to eliminate the log-jam in our trial courts.\nThis group is funded by the California Council on Criminal Justice\nand includes three judges, three lawyers and three laymen. There are\nliaison members from my office and the legislature. Thus, all three\nbranches of state government will participate in this study. We are\nto have a report with recommendations for major changes by next March 15.\nThe urgency of solving overcrowded criminal calendars is best\nemphasized by the situation here in Los Angeles County where the\nSuperior Courts ended the year with 62,000 legal matters still on the\ndocket. This massive backlog was documented by a study group from your\nown Superior Court, in a report that contains 39 specific recommenda-\ntions for judicial reform and lists another 171 proposals for further\nstudy. I would like to commend the committee which assembled this\nimpressive study. This type of activity--within the legal profession\nitself--will help us find ways to speed up the judicial process without\nsacrificing any of the basic rights or protections of our legal\nsystem.\nNow it is up to you--members of this local bar--to evaluate each\nof the suggested changes and to determine which are desirable and\npractical--not only for Los Angeles County, but for the entire state.\nThe Judicial Process Task Force of the California Council on\nCriminal Justice--chaired by my legal affairs secretary Herbert E.\nEllingwood--is sponsoring many other proposals. I would like to\nmention just a few.\n-2-\nAll of the profes onals in your field acknd edge that the\nefficient management of a court calendar is the key to success in\nreducing the number of delayed trials, Yet the trial courts have\nlittle control over the tide of incoming business.\nTo find ways to increase the efficiency of the courts, the council\nhas put a team of two trained experts to work full time with the\npresiding judge of Sacramento County's Superior Court. For at least\na year, they will seek practical means of increasing the efficiency\nof the courts through better calendar management.\nAnother such team has been approved for the Superior Court in\nSan Francisco. Both these teams will seek to develop new techniques\nthat can be applied statewide better scheduling systems that can\nwork for courts of various sizes.\nThis research is unique because the teams will conduct this court\nmanagement project in a pragmatic way with all the ongoing pressures\nof the present system in a day-to-day working environment. And it\nwill affect both civil and criminal courts.\nInformation on the progress of these two projects will be\nexchanged so that each can learn from the experience of the other\nand the overall program will be supervised by the Administrative\nOffice of the Courts.\nJudicial manpower is another practical problem. The Chief\nJustice as chairman of the Judicial Council--last year assigned\njudges to cover 1,325 days in the Appellate courts, 2,837 days in the\nSuperior Courts and 2,891 days in the municipal courts just to keep\nup with critical caseloads.\nCurrently we are helping finance the California College of Trial\nJudges every summer at Berkeley. I have encouraged each of my judicial\nappointees to attend this intensive two week course. And the Judicial\nCouncil has an active program of institutes to acquaint judges with\nnew problems they will be facing.\nOne such project which has received initial approval is on the\nProblems of Narcotics and Drug Abuse. Drug addiction is one of the\nmost critical social and legal problems of our time. To be effective,\njudges must keep up with new developments in this field.\nFor public defenders, we are sponsoring a project of the\nCalifornia Public Defenders Association. This will be an orientation\ncourse for an estimated 100 new deputy public defenders. We hope to\nmake this an annual course so that newly appointed public defenders\nwill receive a thorough understanding and appreciation of the total\ncriminal\njustice\nsystem\n--Hastings Law School has a project for a criminal justice clinic\nup for approval. Under this program, students will work in the offices\nof district attorneys and public defenders and perhaps can be used\nimmediately as para-professionals in the legal field.\nVarious means of automating the judicial process also are under\nway.\nOne suggestion is for witnesses to be \"on call\" until they are\nneeded. Policemen, for example, could be scheduled for duty near the\ncourthouse so that their professional time will be spent on the job\nuntil they are notified to appear in court.\nThe drive for judicial reform is wide-reaching and is going\nforward with many innovations that give promise of providing a more\nefficient court system.\nBefore I leave the subject, I would like to mention one federal\nproject. Last March, a National Conference on the Judiciary convened\nat Williamsburg, Virginia. That meeting may well prove to be the most\nimportant conference on the judicial system in this century.\nThe President, the Chief Justice of the United States and the\nAttorney General met with more than 40 state chief justices.\nThe challenge to the legal profession was issued by Chief Justice\nBurger. He told his colleagues that \"the American system of criminal\njustice in every phase--the police function, the prosecution and\ndefense, the courts and the correctional machinery--is suffering from\na severe case of deferred maintenance\nfully documented by innumerable\nstudies and surveys.\"\nJustice Burger classified civil justice in the same way and urged\nthe establishment of immediate priorities.\nOne of those priorities is better state and federal cooperation.\nThe public is well aware of the various ways by which lawyers seek to\nget around the traditional judicial process. Shopping for a friendly\ncourt to accept a matter that should be the responsibility of a\ndifferent jurisdiction is as offensive and destructive of the judicial\nprocess as it is to shop for a judge.\nIt should not be permitted. It turns the courts into an arena for\nlegal badminton, a spectacle that makes justice a mockery to the\nlayman.\nThe crisis today provides a constructive climate for solving this\nparticular problem. Chief Justice Burger warned last Docember that the\n-4-\nwork of the Supreme C rt itself \"will either bre down or it will\ndeteriorate in quality\" before long unless the crushing burden of cases\nreferred to the nation's highest court is shifted to other courts.\nState and federal judicial councils have been strongly urged to find\nways to limit the number of cases transferred unnecessarily from state\nto federal courts.\nBut these are internal administrative corrections and while they\nare essential, they are only one part of the job that must be done to\nrestore the public's confidence in the courts.\nI will not dwell on the charge that is made that some courts and\nsome judges--al too frequently--view their role as acting as a\ncatalyst of social change rather than as a forum to administer justice\nand interpret laws. I could ask in this connection how many of you are\nuneasy with what seems to be a new teaching philosophy in too many law\nschools today.\nProbably the most visible barrier to courtroom efficiency are\nthose symptoms most visible to the layman.\nJury selection takes too long. Judges seem to be challenged more\nas a delay tactic than for legitimate cause. The disgraceful behavior\nof some defendants and the even more disgraceful conduct of some lawyers\nwho defend them are an affront to the entire legal profession. These\nantics reduce the dignity of the judicial process to the level of a\nstreet brawl shouting match.\nOur citizens are concerned about those judges who do not seem to\nhave adequate control in their own courts and they ask if the bar\nassociations are aggressively moving to discipline those who arrogantly\nviolate your own canons and the ethical standards of your profession.\nThe image projected by the bar is one of getting the criminal off\nrather than acting in a responsible way to assure both the rights of the\ndefendant and the rights of society to be protected against the\nlawbreaker.\nIn the area of search and seizure, the legal debates over police\nmethods long accepted as reasonable, appear to the public to be less of\na quest for justice than a legal chess game with the law abiding\ncitizens as unwilling pawns in the contest.\nEdward Bennett Williams could hardly be regarded as an advocate of\nrepressive laws. Yet he has publicly criticized the legal system on\nmany points.\n-5-\nHe says: \"To the victims of crime, to the witnesses of crime, to\nthe innocent defendants, to the honest policeman, urban criminal\ncourts have become a sham and a broken promise.\"\nThe victim of a crime finds it impossible to understand why a\ndefendant convicted of armed robbery by a court or jury-convicted\nbeyond a reasonable doubt--can forestall his day of reckoning for two\nyears or more.\nWe must redeem the promise of justice by reforming our legal\nsystem so that it will be in fact as well as in theory the mechanism\nby which we assure the Constitutional rights of all our citizens.\nAs officers of the court, you can help achieve this restoration\nusing the same creativity, the same intense energy and the same\nprofessional pride with which you represent your best clients.\nThe legal profession itself must carry the main burden. Some\nvoluntary experiments already are under way.\nWhat I am suggesting is exactly what I told your colleagues last\nyear. You know the problems best. You are able to solve them best.\nThe answer cannot be just a simple plea for more judges.\nNow I don't want to leave the impression that our legal system is\nthe only cause for concern to the people. The public is frustrated\nwith government itself and its seeming inability to solve major\nproblems. The voice of reason is needed now--common sense answers\nbefore the voice of the demagogue makes it impossible for reason to be\nheard above his loud and easy promises.\nIn addition to an intolerable crime rate, we now are experiencing\na staggering increase in acts of violence carried out at random against\ninnocent victims\nall in the name of social or political protest.\nThe self-proclaimed revolutionaries and their legal champions\ndenounce the system yet they wrap themselves in the Constitution at\nevery step in legal proceedings that involve them.\nTo accept their idea of \"justice\" is to accept tyranny and anarchy.\nIf Moses himself stood on Nob Hill and solemnly intoned the Ten\nCommandments, he probably would be denounced as a reactionary seeking\nto impose a repressive and outmoded life style on the multitude. He\nwould be certain to wind up in a Conrad cartoon.\nNo one wants a legal system that is concerned only with arrests\nand quick convictions.\n-6-\nWhat every citiz wants--and what the syste should provide--is\na judicial process that offers a fair trial to every accused, an\nacquittal for the innocent; conviction for the guilty, and sentencing\nand appeals carried out swiftly--but within the framework of the\nConstitutional guarantees we all cherish.\nThis kind of fair and quick justice is not the practice today.\nAnd regrettably, many laymen do not even believe it is still a mission\nof the legal system.\nBut a fierce belief that right will prevail burns deeply within\nthe American consciousness. And the people expect you to help restore\ntheir shining dream of justice for all.\nCarl Sandburg summed up this faith in a poem called \"The People\nWill Live On.\" He described the American capacity for survival against\nthe greatest oppression, the meanest tyranny, and he told of man's\nenduring faith in a bright tomorrow when brotherhood would be a\nreality.\nMan will yet win (he wrote);\nBrother may yet line up with brother.\nUntil that day, we must have law. And we must respect the law\nand make it the highest expression of our civilization. It is your\njob and my job and the concern of everyone to make the bench and the\nbar an institution worthy of the respect that its noble traditions and\nits purpose deserve.\nYou have more to lose than anyone if we fail.\n# # #\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be additions\nto, or changes in the above text. However, the governor will\nstand by the above quotes)\n-7-\n6/2\nthe\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE: WEDNESDAY P.Ms.\nSacramento, California\nJune 2, 1971\nContact:\nPaul ( :k\n445-4571\n6-1-71\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nMEETING OF STATE RESOURCES BOARDS\nRESOURCES BUILDING AUDITORIUM\n11 a.m. Wednesday, June 2, 1971\nThis is the first opportunity I have had to personally express my\nappreciation to each of you for the tremendous job you are doing.\nEnvironmental problems are very much center-stage today throughout the\nnation. And your commissions and boards are the catalyst for solving\nthose problems in California. You can be very proud of your progress in\nfinding those solutions.\nIn the past four years or so, we have been able to mobilize state\ngovernment in the effort to protect California's environment against the\nexcesses of man and his machines and to preserve the cultural heritage\nof this state.\nThe same pioneering spirit that led the 49ers and the settlers to\nCalifornia is still very much evident in the struggle to conserve our\npriceless natural resources.\nRecently a national magazine (Reader's Digest) called attention to\nthe long effort to protect Lake Tahoe against pollution. As this article\nnoted, we are winning that battle.\nCalifornia also is leading the way in developing other programs to\nprotect the environment without choking off the economic development that\nprovides the jobs our people need.\nWe have been, and remain, far ahead of other states in enacting and\nenforcing effective programs to control all types cf pollution. We have\nthe strongest air, water and noise pollution control programs.\nWe are giving environmental considerations major priority in planning\nfreeways and public works projects. And this emphasis is showing results.\nWe believe man can learn to live with the environment if enough\npeople show sufficient concern and commitment to assure us cleaner air,\nfresher water and an end to needless destruction of the esthetic beauty\nof this land we call California.\nNow let no one get the idea I am suggesting we have won the war.\nEach environmental battle is only a skirmish in a struggle that we will\nhave to hand over to our children and they in turn will pass on to their\nchildren. So long as man inhabits this planet, we must make environmental\nprotection a major part of every human endeavor.\nIn this room are concentrated the boards and commissions which\ninvolve almost ever essential service governme provides for all of\nthe people of California, What you do and how well you succeed will have\na lasting impact, not only upon the geography and scenic resources of\nour state, but also upon our citizens.\nWhat is more important than protecting our cities and agricultu\nareas against flood and providing a stable, sufficient water supply for\nour people, for farms and orchards?\nWhat is more vital than wisely managing our marine and wildlife\nresources so that those species of animal and fish life which share\nCalifornia with man will be protected against extinction?\nWhat is more urgent than cleaning up the very air we all must\nbreathe to survive?\nIt is part of your task to see that California protects and\npreserves its rich cultural heritage, that this state's abundant mineral\nresources are mined or otherwise utilized with maximum attention to wise\nconservation.\nIn short, we are attempting to prove that economic progress can\nco-exist with the environment and that we can build without destroying\nor polluting.\nof all the things we have tried to do in state government, I regard\nthis as one of the most important. You are actively involved in what\nmust be the most rewarding and challenging assignment in all state\ngovernment.\nIt can be a tough and frustrating effort to strike a balance between\nprogress and preservation; between what we are able to do now and what\nwe know must eventually be done to protect the environment. And yet,\nwe must do it.\nWe still have a long way to go. Many of your accomplishments carnot\nbe measured in dollars; their value is too immensa. But the programs we\nmust enact and enforce to fight pollution and to accomplish the other\ntasks you have been assigned do cost money. And that brings me to the\nmain purpose of our meeting here today.\nProtecting the environment is a top priority with this administration\nAssuring a stable water supply next year and for the next generation is\nan\nurgent matter. Developing parks and recreational areas for our people\nis a government obligation we all acknowledge.\nAnd yet, there never seems to be enough money to do everything we\nwould like to do.\nIt would be naive to suggest that we will ever be able to satisfy\nall the dollar demai.. which are made each year by various government\nprograms. Budget requests always grow faster than revenues, or even\nlegitimate needs.\nBut we have reached a time of crisis and decision in California\nbecause of two programs: welfare and Medi-Cal. The cost and caseload\nof these two public assistance programs have grown so swiftly in recent\nyears that we are no longer able to finance adequately the many other\nessential programs government must provide.\nI will not recite for you all the staggering statistical evidence.\nI am sure you have heard the figures mentioned time and again. But I\nwould like to point out one numerical fact that emphasizes the magnitude\nof the problem.\nTen years ago, the state of California had a little more than\n600,000 people on the welfare rolls. Today there are 2½½ million and\nthere will be an increase of 600,000 more by the end of the next fiscal\nyear unless we take decisive steps to stem this growth.\nWelfare and Medi-Cal have become an intolerable financial burden on\nour people and on state and local governments. We must reform it and\nrestore welfare to its proper priority as one, but just one---of the\nmany programs government must provide.\nWe have proposed a realistic and reasonable program to do just that\nin California. I have talked about it so much you must be familiar with\nit. But I would like to mention it briefly once more for two reasons:\nfirst, because it vitally affects you---as an individual citizen and as\na member of a board or commission representing an essential state\ngovernment program.\nAnd second, because we need your help in both those capacities.\nOne of the main goals is to restore dignity to the lives of the\nelderly, blind and disabled.\nThen we want to cut through the maze of welfare regulations and law\nand tighten up every one that has been translated into an abuse.\nWe want to terminate welfare aid to illegal aliens\neliminate food\nstamp eligibility for able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 65\nincluding the voluntarily unemployed hippies who sneer at society while\nthey stand in the check-out line clutching food stamps that are intended\nto help the deserving poor.\nWe want to put a realistic ceiling on the amount of spendable income\na family may have and still remain eligible for welfare.\nResources Boards\nFinally, there one other reform we propo the most important\none of all. We intend to require that able-bodied welfare recipients\neither work, be training for a job or take part in a public assistance\nTask Force. Those who refuse will be denied further welfare aid.\nThe loudest opposition to the work requirement is not from the\nrecipients themselves, but from those self-appointed champions of the\npoor\nthe ones who look upon poverty as an acceptable career. They do\nnot want the welfare rolls to stop growing because they look upon the\nneedy as a political power base. These self-serving and self-appointed\nexperts fully realize that when the poor become self-supporting when\nsomeone goes to work they don't like the idea of supporting others who\ndon't work, especially experts whose 'expertise' is limited to ither\nliving off the poverty industry or getting on welfare themselves.\nWe do not expect to convert these kinds of individuals.\nBut we do hope to convince reasonable men and women of all political\nphilosophies in every city and town in this state that California\nsimply cannot go on financing unlimited Medi-Cal benefits and a public\nassistance program that virtually invites abuses.\nWe must reform welfare to make it fair to those who need help the\nmost. Our welfare reform program will do this.\nThose who are opposing this program in the legislature already have\naccepted the idea of higher taxes this year. They have given up\nwithout even considering welfare reform. Apparently, they feel it is\neasier simply to impose higher taxes on the working citizens of California\nthan to insist upon the reforms which all reasonable men and women agree\nare necessary.\nWe have not given up. But we do need help. We need your influence\nand your support.\nTell your friends to write their legislators and demand welfare\nreform. Tell them that the only alternative to welfare reform is higher\ntaxes\nindefinitely.\nUrge your County Supervisors to get behind this program. Despite\nthe false propaganda you have heard, our reform does not mean a financial\nburden to counties. Instead, counties will save more than $100 million\na year and the state will assume the basic health costs for 800,000 people\nwho now must be cared for entirely at county expense. The state will\ntake over administrative expenses that we now share with counties.\nResources Boards\nIn order to meet the concern of some county officials who honestly\nfeared a cost shift to local government, we have amended our welfare\nreform. And many of those who previously expressed opposition say they\nare satisfied.\nThere is no longer any reason, no honest cause for opposing welfare\nreform.\nOur people want it. And we must have welfare reform unless we are\nprepared to abandon many other vital state programs, including those we\nneed to protect the environment.\nTake this message with you to the people you know. Ask them for\ntheir support, as I am asking you now for yours.\nThe choice is simple and it must be made now: higher taxes or\nwelfare reform.\n######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be additions\nto, or changes in the above text. However, the governor will\nstand by the above quotes).\n5 I I\n6/4\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE: Saturday A.Ms.\nSacramento, California\nJune 5, 1971\nContact:\nPaul Be\n445-4571\n6-3-71\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nPOW-MIA International, Inc., Dinner\nLos Angeles, California\nJune 4, 1971\nIt is customary for a speaker, when invited to address such a\ndistinguished gathering, to describe the opportunity as a privilege.\nAnd I am privileged to be with you this evening, privileged and\nhonored.\nNo one could stand before this particular assembly without also\nfeeling deep humility and great pride.\nHumility because that is the only possible emotion in the face\nof the human courage and sheer fortitude we are acknowledging by our\npresence here tonight; and pride because it is an occasion for pride\nto see so many Americans expressing their personal concern for the\nfate of a gallant few.\nIt is these missing men who are the real guests of honor here\ntonight. And perhaps it is appropriate for us to leave one empty\nchair on this rostrum and mark it reserved--reserved for those who\ncannot be with us, but whose courage and endurance in captivity\nbrought us together.\nWe are not here for a partisan reason. We are here for a\nhumanitarian cause. And our cause transcends any political divisions.\nWe are not here as hawks or doves. We are here as Americans who are\nconcerned about the plight of almost 1,600 brave countrymen who are\nmissing or held prisoner by the enemy in Southeast Asia.\nSome of them have been held captive for six or even seven years\nlonger than any other prisoners in any of our past wars or conflicts.\nThe fact that we do not even know how many are prisoners is a grim\nreminder of the inhumane and barbaric treatment they are enduring.\nIn violation of the most basic terms of the Geneva Convention,\nthe enemy has not given us a complete listing of the men they hold\nprisoner. The North Vietnamese Communists have not allowed Red Cross\nteams to visit the internment camps to see that these prisoners are\nreceiving humane treatment. They have not permitted release of the\nsick and injured. And they have not even exhibited a minimum of human\ndecency and compassion by allowing the men they hold to maintain a\nregular correspondence with their wives and children.\n-1-\nPOW-MIA\nInstead, time again, the Communists have cruelly and cynically\nused the plight of our missing men in a sadistic game to further their\nown aims.\nOnly some among us tonight--the wives and families of these brave\nmen--can ever really know in full measure the terrible anguish this\ninhumanity has caused.\nBut millions of Americans, from every corner of this land, who\ncan only try to imagine your pain, say to you and to all the other\nwives and relatives of our missing and imprisoned men: We want with\nall our hearts to share your burden.\nThere is an extra element of tragedy in the plight of your\nhusbands, sons and brothers. Unlike other conflicts, in other times,\nthey cannot take comfort in the knowledge that whatever their hardships,\nAmerica is united behind them.\nThis is the first group of American prisoners of war who have\never had to endure--along with captivity--the bitter awareness that\nsome of their own countrymen are more concerned about the enemy than\nabout them. No doubt many participate in parades for peace with all\nsincerity, but I would find that easier to believe if they weren't\nmarching beneath the enemy's flag.\nOne of the more prominent demonstrators recently said on national\ntelevision the prisoner of war problem was a \"joke\" and that there is\nno way to get them home without setting a firm date for withdrawal in\nadvance.\nThe issue of the prisoners is not a joke. It is the single\nmost important issue involved in this long and savage war and we want\nthem back now.\nThose in America who speak of \"peace\" say it can be easily\npurchased by accepting the terms the enemy has dictated. They imply\nthat the United States and those who serve their country's military\nforces do not share their desire for peace. Whatever the divisions we\nmay have over the origins of the Vietnam War, the desire for peace is\nunanimous. And nowhere is this felt more strongly than among the men\nwho know the sight and sound and smell of war.\nSome of the ugliest and more lasting scars in this war have been\ninflicted, not by the enemy on a far-away battlefield, but by\ndivisions among our own people, at home, in our own streets.\nPOW-MIA\nPsychological Wa. fare is practiced in time 01 war to reduce the\nenemy's belief in his own cause, to make him distrust his own leaders\nand colleagues\nto raise serious doubts in his own mind about the\njustice of his system of government and to make him lose faith in the\nstated objectives of his society.\nNo matter what their declared intent or how sincere the\ndemonstrators' desire for \"peace\", they have been fulfilling the\nmission of psychological warfare not against the enemy, but against\nour own nation.\nAnd the cost of this has been the unnecessary deaths of thousands\nof young Americans and an unnecessary prolonging of the suffering and\nhardships of our prisoners of war.\nPeace demonstrators subscribe to many myths easily exposed if\nonly they were interested in the truth. How many students have been\nassigned Marvin Gettleman's book on the Vietnam War as outside reading?\nAnd have any been told to test it's blatant propaganda against the\nhistorical facts in \"Vietnam: Anatomy of Conflict\" (by Wesley Fishel) ?\nProfessor Fishel's book commits the apparent academic sin of\nrecalling the entire history of the Vietnam conflict, including the\nfact that that great Vietnamese patriot, Ho Chi Minh, never saw his\nnative land in all the years between 1911 and 1940.\nNor was this because he was in lonely exile. He was a founder\nof the French Communist Party and in 1924, worked in Moscow as an\nofficial representative of the French Communists. When he did return\nto Vietnam, he did so as a representative of the Comitern, fomenting\nrevolution against the French in that phase of this long war.\nHo Chi Minh was not even a true Vietnamese nationalist. In fact,\nin 1946\nbefore the National Union movement had actually engaged the\nFrench in combat\nHo engineered the slaughter of many Vietnamese\nnationalist\nsupporters\nthose who were interested in a truly free\nVietnam.\n-3-\nPOW-MIA\nOne of the Communist tactics was simple assassination of all who\ndared disagree with them. Another was to send the Vietnamese\nnationalists as a vanguard against the French. In one incident,\n2,000 young Vietnamese between the ages of 15 and 20 were left to defend\nHanoi while Ho's own Communist forces slipped out the back door. This\nwas hardly original with Ho---it is standard Communist operating\nprodedure.\nor doesn't anyone remeber World War II when the Polish and\nJewish guerrillas in the Warsaw ghetto were told by the advancing\nSoviet armies to rise up and strike against the Nazis as the Russians\nattacked the city.\nThe signal was given and Warsaw freedom fighters struck with\nevery weapon they had, including rocks and bricks. But, the Soviet\narmy halted its advance and waited--waited until there were no sounds\nof conflict from the ghetto--not even the cries of the wounded just\na deadly silence. The Communists would not be sharing power with\nlocal leaders when they took over Poland from the Nazis.\nIt only took a few days in Warsaw. In Hanoi the young Vietnamese\nnationalists betrayed by Ho Chi Minh held out for two months before\nthe benevolent kindly dictator Uncle Ho heard the silence he was\nwaiting for.\nAnother myth is that at the Geneva Conference on Indo-China in\n1954, the United States and South Vietnam agreed to hold free elections\nto unify the country and that we refused to honor the agreement for\nfear Ho would win. All propagandists sell this one Richard Goodwin,\nFelix Greene, Dr. Spock and Norman Cousins. They often misuse a quote\nfrom the late President Eisenhower to support this claim always\ncarefully omitting the lines which would reveal he was speaking of\nan election that would have pitted Ho Chi Minh or anyone else against\nthe French puppet Emperor Bao Dai.\n-4-\nThe truth is the ited States and South Viet m did not endorse\nthe so-called 1956 election proposal not because they were not\ninterested in free elections, but because Ho Chi Minh and the Communists\nrefused to agree to hold such free elections under international\nsupervision. The United States was not included as an official party in\nthe final settlement of the French Indo-China war.\nSubsequently South Vietnam repeatedly proposed free elections\nthroughout the country--to be held under international supervision when\npeace and order was restored. Always it was Ho who refused.\nIn 1955 the people of South Vietnam proved the correctness of\nPresident Eisenhower's assessment of Emperor Bao Dai. In a legitimate\nreferendum with 90 percent of the people participating he was\noverwhelmingly defeated by the late President Diem.\nA year later the Diem government announced that South Vietnam would\naccept the defacto separation of Vietnam and would not resort to force\nin an effort to re-unify the country. He urged the re-unification of\nVietnam by peaceful means through truly democratic and free elections.\nAgain it was Ho who rejected such overtures.\nThen on May 8, 1960, Ho Chi Minh held his kind of election. There\nwas no need for voting booths because there was no secret ballot. The\npeople of Vietnam marked their ballots at tables set up on street corners,\nhelped by Ho's Communist agents. And what do you know? Ho got almost\n99 percent of the vote. Less than a third of the other offices were even\ncontested.\nAll this time there was an International Control Commission set up\nby the 1954 Geneva agreements, It did very little because the Communists\nhad insisted on unanimous decisions. The representatives were from\nCanada, India and Communist Poland and the Communist member could be\ncounted on for a consistent vetc. Finally in 1962 the representatives\nof Canada and India charged the Communists of North Vietnam with subversive\nand hostile actions designed to overthrow the free government of South\nVietnam.\nThis is just part of the history so often edited out of the versions\nsome of our students receive.\n- 5 -\nPOW Speech\nBut all of this\nhistorical fact\navailab\nto anyone who seeks\nthe truth about Vietnam.\nFor those in the demonstrations and marches, especially those who\ntruly believe in peace and prefer to march under our flag I have a\nquestion: suppose we do what they propose? Tell the enemy we are getting\nout now give them a date and unilaterally lay down our weapons? We\nare told the enemy will leave our departing men unmolested and return\nour prisoners after we have reduced our presence to zero demonstrators,\nCongressmen, Senators and any number of assorted bleeding hearts tell\nus this.\nWhat if they are wrong? What if there is even one chance that the\nenemy descends on our retreating forces once their numbers had been\nsufficiently reduced? What if there is a battle on the beach\n\"Dunkirk\" with thousands of our young men killed and captured? Do our\npleaders for peace have facts not known to the President? Will they\nguarantee absolutely this will not happen?\nThe answer, of course, is they have no such facts and they can mal\nno such certain guarantee. They are just sure in their own minds that\neverything will turn out all right. If it does not well their purpose\nwas noble. Their only sin was wanting peace---at any price. But\nsomeone else will pay that price.\nThe President has no such easy write-off. As Commander-in-Chief\nhe must take into consideration even that one in a million possibility\nof disaster for he must answer to each one of our men and for each one\nof them.\nInto his consideration must go all that he knows of the enemy--the\nmurder of more than 30,000 village leaders, the violation of holiday\ntruces, the slaughter and burial of thousands of men, women and children\nat Hue. He must remember the terrorist bombings of school rooms, buses,\nmovie theaters and street corner crowds long before we were even in the\nwar. There are a million refugees who fled North Vietnam to escape the\nmass executions in the North which were as savage and senseless as the\nmass murder of landlords by Mai Tse Tung in China.\n- 6 -\nPOW Speech\nFor four years we ive sat at the table in Pa S offering bombing\nhalts, cease fires and mutual withdrawal. Never once has the enemy said\n\"If you do this your prisoners will be returned\", he has said only that\nhe will talk about it if we will quit.\nSome of those who yearn for peace as well as some members of\nCongress have been playing Russian Roulette again at no risk to them-\nselves. For the gun was always aimed at someone else's head.\nThere are signs that the enemy badly hurt in Cambodia and Laos\nwas putting out feelers indicating he might finally be ready to do\nbusiness in the Paris meetings. The massive demonstrations, the talk in\nCongress of trying to vote our capitulation, has given him reason to\nhang on a while longer, to launch raids and increase American casualties\nfor propaganda value here at home. How many young Americans died and\nwill die in Vietnam because of the parades and speeches in Washington?\nThe enemy has been encouraged to believe he can win the cruel waiting\ngame\nnot by how many divisions he can put in the field in Vietnam but\nby how many divisions there are among our own people here in America.\nThe President has chosen, as he should, a program of withdrawal\ngeared directly to the ability of the South Vietnamese to assume\nresponsibility for their own defense. And this too is our concern, or\nhave some of us decided we no longer hold out the hand of brotherhood\nto the downtrodden?\nAt one of our state colleges recently a speaker was explaining our\nVietnam policy. A middle-aged man in the audience began heckling him\nand of course was immediately joined by a certain element among the\nstudents. Then a young man in the audience stood up and addressed the\nhecklers. He was an exchange student from Vietnam in fact a refugee\nfrom North Vietnam.\nHe said, \"If you don't think it is in your interest to help my\ncountry why don't you get out? It's that easy, you don't have to find\na\nreason just go.\" And then he made it plain that his people need our\nhelp, but he asked, \"Do you really ever think about our people, wonder\nabout them do you care about them? If you don if you don't want\nto help us then go home.\" The crowd was silent I would like to think\nashamed.\n- 7 -\nPOW Speech\nWe can hope that etings like this one here bnight will help\nHanoi from fatally misreading the mood of America.\nThe President has offered the Communists an immediate cease fire\nthroughout Indochina, the immediate release of all prisoners, al all\nIndochina peace conference, complete withdrawal of all outside forces\nand a political settlement of the hostilities there. But he has said\nwe will not abandon our men who are prisoners. We will stay as long as\nwe have to and do what we have to, to get them back.\nMillions of Americans must endorse this position, must in a\nthunderous voice tell Congressmen, Senators and the faint of heart but\nmost particularly the enemy---he is not going to win his war here in\nMain Street America.\nSome of the young ladies on my staff have been wearing bracelets\nwhich are distributed by a student group on behalf of our prisoners.\nEach bracelet bears a name and date. The name of a missing man and\nthe date he was lost. One reads Lt. David Rehmann 12-2-66. The\nlieutenant is a U.S. Navy pilot from Lancaster, California. He is\nknown to be a prisoner a captive for 4½ years.\nI find myself asking, \"Where do we find such men?\" Young men who\nleave their homes and loved ones to go half a world away. They fly out\nover a strange land through machine gun and rocket fire and then having\ndone their appointed task seek out a dot on the ocean and try to land in\nstormy darkness on the heaving deck of a carrier.\nWhat produces these young men where do they come from? The answer\nis so simple. America produces them and has in every time of crisis for\n200 years. They come from our cities, our farms, our small towns.\nLast December, T.V. recorded the White House meeting of the President\nand some of the gallant leaders of that daring attempt to rescue\nprisoners from a camp in the enemy heartland. The President asked the\ncommander where he had found such men. The answer so quietly given\nshould have thrilled every American. He said, \"We could have had\nthousands, Sir.\" Thousands willing to gamble their lives to save\nanother greater glory hath no man.\n- 8 -\nPOW Speech\nBut even this he: :c rescue mission became t object of criticism\nand debate by some public officials whose carping surely lent some\nmeasure of comfort to the enemy.\nA decade ago, an American President said that Americans should let\nthe word go forth that we would pay any price, bear any burden, to\nassure the survival of all those things we hold precious to guarantee\nthat the freedoms we enjoy will be secured for our children and their\nchildren.\nThose words should be a reminder of the very meaning and purpose of\ngovernment; to offer the protection of all to even the least among us\nwherever in the world he may be. Distance alone must not be allowed to\nrob a man of his God-given right to life and liberty.\nIf we are unwilling to make such a pledge to each other then our\ntrumpet will sound an uncertain note and all the world will hear. And\ntherein lies great danger. From the vantage point of history, we look\nback on wars we might have avoided had an enemy not mistaken our desire\nfor peace or our patience for weakness.\nWe are not given to bellicose sabre rattling or unnecessary\nbelligerance. But the savage captors of our young men must be made to\nknow that each one of those young men is precious to us; that there will\nbe no peace until they are restored to their families. Our President\nhas said as much. Now it is up to all of us to make it unmistakably\nclear to the enemy that he spoke only what is in the heart of each one\nof us. We will not buy our peace by abandoning even one American.\n#######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be additions\nto, or changes in the above text. However, the governor will\nstand by the above quotes).\n- 9 -\n6/17\nis\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE: FRIDAY A.Ms.\nSacramento, California\nJune 18, 1971\nContact:\nPaul Beck\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\n445-4571\n6-17-71\nRELEASE.\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nCALIFORNIA LIVESTOCK SYMPOSIUM\nFresno, California\nJune 17, 1971\nBecause of the change to Democratic control of the legislature and\nthe close party division in the Assembly and the Senate, it was obvious\nfrom the start that we would have to work together to achieve realistic\ntax and welfare reform and to solve the state's cash-flow difficulties\nand the other revenue problems caused by the national economic decline.\nThese are not partisan issues. And the people don't care who gets\nscreen credit (nor do I) SO long as we meet the state's essential needs\nwithout increasing the cost and size of government and without increasing\nthe taxes our people are already paying.\nFor five months now, we have attempted to develop a bi-partisan tax\nreform program with the legislative leadership. Our goal is to shift some\nof the intolerable burden from the homeowner to a number of broader based\ntaxes. This should be a bi-partisan cinch. Both parties have pledged to\ndo as much for more than four years. So at the beginning of this\nlegislative session I proposed a joint effort to construct a workable,\npractical and acceptable tax reform plan. Unfortunately no one came to\nthe party.\nWhen it became apparent that time was running out we proposed an\nadministration tax reform program that includes the essential alements it\nmust have to assure that the property tax burden on homeowners will\nin fact as well as theory---be substantially reduced.\nThere is general agreement that tax reform is an urgent necessity,\nyet some citizens remain wary of major changes in the tax laws and with\ngood reason. Too often in the past, they were handed \"tax reform\" which\nturned out to be a tax increase. It does the homeowner little good for\nthe state to provide property tax relief if local or county government\nsolves its revenue problems by raising the tax rates so as to wash out\nthe state funded reduction. That is why, in our program, we insisted\nupon including expenditure controls for counties and school districts\nto guarantee the homeowner the property tax relief he receives from the\nstate will not fade like a vacation tan.\n- 1 -\nLivestock Symposium\nOur opponents have two tax reform programs which contain some\nelements that are necessary in any reform package, although neither\nmarks any attempt to impose expenditure controls.\nAt first glance, the tax relief they promise sounds enticing.\nuntil you read the fine print. Then you discover that both programs\ncontain exactly what some of our skeptical citizens fear---a massive\ntax increase disguised as tax reform as much as $500 million more per\nyear with absolutely no guarantee that the homeowners tax relief will\nbe permanently reduced.\nWithout going into a detailed comparison, let me point out a few\npoints you should be interested in: There would be no guaranteed tax\nrelief for agriculture in either of these two plans.\nOur program last year and this year does include provisions to\nencourage open spaces and the preservation of agricultural land for\nfood production.\nCalifornia recognized a number of years ago the unfair practice of\nassessing farm and ranch land for its highest potential rather than on\nthe basis of actual use. As a result, the California Land Conservation\nAct was adopted and 41 of the state's 58 counties are now participating\nin it.\nMore than 6½ million acres, about 1/6 of the state's agricultural\nland, is presently set aside in agricultural preserves under provisions\nof the Williamson Land Conservation Act and rebifies for lower property\ntax rates. The effect has been to reduce the assessed value of these\nlands by more than $227 million, saving the owners $22 million a year.\nWe propose to reimburse counties and other local agencies for part\nof the revenues they lose as ? result of the open space program and have\nset aside $12 million for this reimbursement in the first year and a\ntotal of $57 million over the next four years.\n- 2 -\nLivestock Symposium\nBoth of these other tax reform plans also propose what amounts to a\n'tax relief' cash subsidy to non-tawpayers. They would authorize income\ntax credits or refunds of $35 to $75 for all renters regardless of\nwhether they owed any taxes or not, This part of their program may not\neven be constitutional. But apparently they think it is sound fiscal\npolicy to provide tax relief to those who don't owe any taxes.\nOur plan provides that each renter would receive a tax credit of\nup to $50 a year to apply against his state income taxes. This would be\nin addition to the current double standard exemption. If the taxpayer\nowed less than $50, his entire tax obligation would be forgiven. If he\nowed $100, it would be cut in half. By specifying tax credits, we insure\nthat the revenues set aside for tax relief will go only to those who pay\ntaxes.\nHomeowners would receive property tax reductions ranging from 100\npercent for smaller homes to a maximum of 20 percent for homes costing\n$47,000 or more. A home with a market value of $15,000 would receive a\n55 percent reduction, taxes on homes in the $25,000 range would be cut\nby 34 percent.\nWe also propose to reimburse counties for 60 percent of most\nwelfare costs in excess of 25 cents on the county's tax rate; our plan\nwould shift $44 million in county costs to the state by having the state\nassume the current $1,000 veterans property tax exemption.\nNow, to finance the program:\nthe state sales tax would be increased not to exceed one cent;\n--bank and corporation taxes would go to 7½ percent this year and\nto 8 percent in 1974;\npersonal income taxes in the highest brackets would be increased;\nthe oil depletion allowance would be lowered to the same level\nthat the federal government allows, and;\nthere would be a minimum income tax.\nPossibly the most important difference between our approach and\ntheirs is how to use the so-called \"windfall\" that one time bundle of\nmoney government gets in the first year when it starts collecting state\nincome taxes by withholding. This amounts to roughly $500 million.\nWe propose to the taxpayers as a one-time rebate approximately 50\npercent or $250 million of that windfall. The other $250 million will\nbe utilized to meet essential capital construction needs\nfor school\nand community college construction, higher education and parks and\nrecreational developments, without raising income tax rates.\nLivestock Symposium\nThe change to withholding also would mean substantial sums in\npermanent ongoing revenues. However, because the economic slump has\ncontinued to reduce the tax revenues we had counted on to fund the\nbudget we submitted last February, we have a revenue gap.\nWe propose to meet this gap largely by using this permanent ongo\n3\nincrease in state revenues.\nIn my state-of-the-state and inaugural messages, I said I am firmly\nopposed to increasing taxes and I still believe we must make every effort\nto avoid a tax increase.\nYet one of the other plans (Moscone) proposes to use up the entire\nwithholding windfall for spending. It does not provide a one-time\nrebate to the taxpayers. And it would use up both the ongoing and one-\ntime revenues that will be available from withholding to finance ongoing\nprograms.\nIn effect, it sets a tax time-bomb with a one year fuse because\nthere would be a built-in future deficit. To accept that would break\nfaith with the taxpayers.\nI have been called stubborm and inflexible for resisting these typ a\nof so-called \"tax reforms,\" If it is inflexible to refuse to enact a\nbuilt-in tax increase in the guise of tax reform, then it is a type of\ninflexibility our citizens have a right to expect from their elected\nofficials at all levels of government.\nThere has been too much cynical maneuvering on tax reform. The\nbeleaguered homeowners are entitled to a realistic program that will\npermanently ease their property tax burden. And I plan to continue to\nfight for that kind of true tax reform.\nThe subjects I have mentioned tax reform, and a balanced budget\nare both important. But neither can be achieved unless we also act in\nour most urgent priority. That, ladies and gentlemen, is to reform a\nwelfare system that threatens to saddle the people of California with a\ntax increase this year, next year and every year unless we adopt some\nreasonable restraints and limit assistance to those who truly need help.\nAfter four years of trying in bits and pieces to make the present\nopen ended welfare system work, we put a team of attorneys and management\nspecialists to work on welfare reform last year. They combed through the\nlaws to trace the many examples of outrageous welfare abuse that you\nread about in the newspapers.\nLivestock Symposium\nAfter seven months of work, we submitted to the legislature a\ncomprehensive 70-point welfare reform program to close the loopholes,\nrestore dignity to the system and increase benefits for the truly\nneedy\nwithout raising taxes.\nSome of our reforms were measures requiring legislation. Some\ncould be done by administrative changes. We are already instituting\nthose. Our total package including legislation and regulation\nchanges\nwill save more than $600 million in state, county and federal\nwelfare expenditures in the next fiscal year and will allow us to\nbalance the budget without increasing taxes.\nThe only legislative alternative presented thus far would eliminate\none of the chief parts of our program a provision that welfare\nemployees be required to prove that applicants truly need assistance\nbefore they are certified for welfare.\nMoreover, this Democrat \"substitute\" would undermine the work\nrequirement program which we proposed as a means of restoring to public\nassistance the discipline and dignity of work for those able-bodied\nrecipients who may need temporary assistance but who should not be\nregarded as permanently dependent.\nTen years ago, there were about 600,000 people on welfare in\nCalifornia. Today, there are more than 2.4 million and unless we act to\nstem this excessive growth, the increase alone will be another 600,000\nby the end of the next fiscal year.\nThe people of California and those in every other state have lost\nfaith in the present welfare system. They see it for what it is---a\nconfusing hodge=podge of conflicting and ridiculous regulations that\nencourage abuses.\nYet every time someone proposes a realistic and effective reform to\neliminate welfare fraud and legal abuses, opponents charge that reform\nis an effort to deprive the needy.\nDoes anyone think it is fair for families earning $600 a month\na\nigure well above any poverty line yet proposed to receive the same\nsize welfare check as a family which has no income at all?\nThe federally mandated regulations in the current program not only\nallow such an inequity. they actually encourage this kind of abuse.\n- 5 -\nLivestock Symposium\nShould the working citizens of California be forced to pay higher\nand higher taxes to finance unlimited medical benefits for those on\nwelfare benefit two to three times greater than the basic health\nprotection most citizens can afford for their own families?\nIs there something wrong with trying to impose reasonable restraint\nthat would assure that our welfare dollars go to those who need help\nmost?\nShould we accept the prospect of a permanent and growing population\nof able-bodied welfare recipients who once certified as needy are\nentitled to lifetime support at the expense of the taxpayers? This is\nnot the purpose of public assistance.\nWe have proposed a work requirement for able-bodied adults.\nthis provision, adults on welfare would be required to be either seek\nemployment, training for a job or they would have to take part in a\npublic assistance work force to qualify for further aid. If they refus\nthey will be denied welfare.\nThe main purpose of this work=oriented program would be to change\nthe direction of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children category\nthe area where many of the publicized abuses occur. Ventura County\nalready has agreed to test this concept of regarding able-bodied adult\nrecipients as temporarily unemployed rather than as permanent dependents\non public assistance.\nFinally, we hope to restore dignity to the lives of our senior\ncitizens, the blind and the disabled by taking them permanently out of\nthe welfare program. We want to provide them with automated monthly\nchecks in a program similar to Social Security.\nWith the savings this would permit, we would ultimately be able to\nincrease their benefits. The overall reforms in the other parts of our\nprogram also would allow us to increase benefits for those families who\nhave little or no income. They are the ones who suffer most because the\npresent system allows many people to claim benefits even though they he\nufficient means to meet their own basic needs.\nThese are humanitarian goals. These are reasonable goals. Welfare\nas it exists today is dividing our people and aggravating rather than\nalleviating social tensions.\nWe must change it. We must reverse its course so that it will not\nbe\nwhat it is today a certain pathway to defeat and dejection for those\nwho must rely on it for support.\nLivestock Symposium\nThere is a definite difference in philosophie S behind the\ndisagreement on welfare reform a radically different belief with\nregard to the role of government. Our efforts to achieve tax and we:\nreform are based on the premise that it is our duty to balance the\nbudget, provide realistic tax reform and reform a discredited welfare\nsystem without raising taxes. In short, that government should be\nlimited in size and power and the people left to run their own lives\nmuch as possible consistent with an orderly society. Opposed to this\nview are those who believe government is ordained to provide for the\npeople not just to satisfy the bare needs of government, but to\nsubsidize government's wants.\nWe do not believe the people of California want their elected\nofficials to raise taxes without first exerting every effort to avoid\nincreasing the financial burden on our citizens.\nThe Constitution requires us to have a balanced budget. The peop\nwant a balanced budget without a tax increase. But apparently, some i\nthe legislature are misreading the mood of the public.\nIt is crucially important in these final weeks of the legislature\nto let them know they are mistaken, that they cannot use welfare and\ntax reform as a vehicle for raising taxes.\nIf you want a balanced budget, a fair and equitable tax and\nwelfare reform, write to your legislators and let them know how you fee\nThe people elected their public officials to solve problems, not\nto play politics with the fiscal future of California.\n######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be addition\nto, or changes in the above text. However, the governor will\nstand by the above quotes).\n- 7 -\n-\nby\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE: TUESDAY P.Ms.\nSacramento, California\nJune 22, 1971\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n6-22-71\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nCOMMONWEALTH CLUB OF CALIFORNIA\nGrand Ballroom, St. Francis Hotel\nSan Francisco, California\nJune 22, 1971\nTwo years ago, when I addressed you, my topic was the People's Park\ncontroversy across the Bay in Berkeley, a subject which to that point\nthere had been shed much heat and very little light.\nThere were at that time those who said firm handling of that\nsituation by the established authorities could only lead to disaster, to\na complete collapse of the University of California's home campus of\nBerkeley.\nBut the Campanile still stands and the University remains one of\nthe world's greatest institutions of higher learning.\nToday campus-related violence seems to be subsiding. But there have\nbeen other direct challenges to the University's traditional role in our\nsociety. I refer not only to the University of California, but to\ncampuses all across the nation.\nJust a year ago, one of those ugly symptoms seized the spotlight:\nthe willful use of the classroom by too many faculty members trying to\nimpose on students their own beliefs and bias. They called it\n\"re-constitution of courses.\" Actually it turned out to be instant\ngrades and units for rapping about the war: a manipulation of academic\nfreedom contradicting the very purpose of the academy as a place where\ntruth and knowledge can be pursued objectively, without fear. Protests\nwere voiced by the public, many students and by thoughtful faculty\nmembers who know that the University as an institution cannot survive\nif it permits itself to become an instrument of physical or intellectual\ncoercion on behalf of one political view.\nFor more than 100 years the campus in America has represented\nsociety's highest devotion to objectivity, a place where reason ruled\nover emotion, where the cultural values of our civilization were passed\non from generation to generation, pushing forward the frontiers of\nknowledge.\nToo often, in these past 7½ years, we have forgotten that primary\ngoal. But now the volume of revolutionary rhetoric has been lowered.\nThere are few street confrontations and fewer buildings being captured.\n- 1 -\nCommonwealth Club\nPerhaps working together we can restore the public's confidence\nin the University the confidence it enjoyed and earned through\ndedication to academic goals in all those other decades.\nUnfortunately, our efforts to return to the fundamental purpose of\nhigher education must take place this year within the context of a\nsevere economic pinch which has required a general tightening of budgets\nin both public and private institutions of higher education in\nCalifornia and throughout the country.\nThe challenge today is not whether outside assistance is necessary\nto keep the University operating in the face of a threat of violence,\nbut whether the University community itself will choose to take the\nnecessary action to meet its responsibilities.\nThe people of California have long considered education to be the\nstate's No. 1 priority. They know our educational system prepares our\nyouth for informed and rational functioning within a free and democratic\nsociety.\nIn recent weeks, a parade of University spokesmen have gone forth\nto solicit public support for greater spending than our proposed budget\nallocates for the next fiscal year. They have contacted alumni and other\nfriends of the University. They have painted a picture of impending\neducational disaster if the University's demands for increased funding\nare not met.\nI do not take issue with their right, indeed their duty to\nvigorously press the University's requests for state financing. But my\nown responsibility is to a much broader constituency than just one area\nof government or one essential public program.\nI have to balance the University's claim for more money against\nother, equally urgent needs and then match the sum total of these claims\nagainst the state's ability to finance them and against the ability of\nour economy to absorb an increased tax burden at a time when the national\neconomy is taking its first slow step back from an economic recession.\nSince they have not pointed this out, I will---we are not discussing a\nchanged emphasis on priorities. Education is already our No. 1 priority.\nTo accept the University's financial demands means a tax increase for\nour people.\n- 2 -\nCommonwealth Club\nSo these questions must be posed to you and to the people of\nCalifornia for your impartial judgment. Is the state arbitrarily\nstifling the University through budget reductions? Is higher education\nand this state's commitment to excellence endangered by requests for\nbetter management of the University's financial resources and personnel?\nDo we have on our campuses an overworked faculty, unable to function\neffectively because the teaching activity we expect is far beyond a\nreasonable level?\nThe budget we have proposed for the University of California in the\ncoming year is at about the same level of state support we provided\nthis year. That is more than $337 million and reflects a 40 percent\nincrease during these past four years. The State Colleges have received\nan increase of 88 percent and state aid to the community colleges has\ngone up 151 percent. Student aid grants and scholarships have\nquadrupled.\nAll told, our proposed budget for the support of higher education\nis more than two-thirds of a billion dollars highest in the state's\nhistory.\nEvery state-financed program, including the University, would like\nto have more. Sometimes advocates of increased funding compare our\nspending to that of our sister state New York. They are not doing that\nSO much this year. Unlike California, New York proposes to provide fewer\ntax dollars next year for higher education than it did this year. Some\n300 to 400 vacant faculty and staff positions in higher education are\nbeing abolished and 500 permanent and temporary employees are to be\nlaid off. There has even been talk of not admitting a freshman class at\nall to that state's university system next fall. New York's governor\nand the legislature have cut $750 million from the budget requests for\nall education and are laying off thousands of state employees.\nIn Illinois, the budget for higher education has been reduced by\nmore than $177 million. The State of Washington suggests a salary cut\nfor all members of the faculty, as well as for other employees.\nEvery major state university system is undergoing a period of\nfinancial austerity.\nIn Michigan, the governor has asked for a reduction in enrollment at\nthe University next year. Spokesmen for the State University say budget\nreductions in that state mean in inevitable \"erosion toward mediocrity.'\nThe words and music have a familiar sound.\n- 3 -\nCommonwealth Club\nHere, University of California spokesmen imply that the University\nis being singled out for economic persecution. They make reference to\nfour years of \"economic decline\" when, in fact, during the past four\nbudget years, they have had an increase in General Fund dollars greater\nthan in any previous four years.\nSacramento has been blamed for specific curtailment of specific\nprograms when, in fact, the constitution provides that only the\nUniversity itself may decide where to put and where to withhold the\ndollars available.\nMost significantly, they have suggested that the only solution to\nthe University's financial problem is greater funding. By their actions\nand attitude, they have rejected the prospect of meeting this situation\nthrough internal belt tightening, modifying programs or re-examining the\nteaching workload and the usage of existing faculties.\nThe University implies that this is not possible, that to teach more,\nto give greater priority to instruction and to senior faculty contact\nwith students, would jeopardize educational excellence.\nThe layman has no way of evaluating the validity of that claim.\nYet those of us in the executive and legislative branches must attempt\nto do so if we are to carry out our responsibilities of providing the\nmaximum possible state support for the University while meeting other\nessential needs within the revenues we have available.\nLet us examine, then, the University of California's position that\nthe only solution to its financial problems is increased funding by the\ntaxpayers of this state. Particularly, let us examine the University's\nattitude toward the teaching load, its approach to classroom use, and\nits salary scale.\nFACULTY TEACHING WORKLOAD\nHistorically, teaching has been afforded equal status with research\nand other functions in our institutions of higher learning. In California\nNew York, Michigan, nine or ten hours in the classroom per week\nor\nabout three lecture courses-- is traditionally regarded as an appropriate\nteaching workload. By adding the time spent developing courses,\ninterviewing students, and for such activities as individual study, this\nusually brings the time devoted to teaching to about 50 percent for an\naverage faculty member, with the other time available for research.\n- 4 -\nCommonwealth Club\nIn\nthe colleges which do not have equivalent research obligations--\n12 hours or four three-unit lecture courses is regarded as the norm and\n15 hours is the standard workload for community college faculties.\nThe legislative analyst confirmed this standard in 1962-63 and past\nrecords show the University has operated quite effectively, without\nfaculty discontent, at even higher levels. According to one of its own\npublications, classroom teaching hours in the mid-50s ranged from 17.3\nhours weekly for undergraduates to 15.2 hours at the post-graduate level.\nAnd it was during that time the University of California achieved it:\nenviable reputation for educational excellence.\nDuring the intervening years, unfortunately, teaching has been\nneglected or downgraded. Unknown to the public or those representing\nthe public, universities across the country have dramatically reduced\ntheir teaching activities.\nUniversity spokesmen protest that the faculty works \"sixty hours a\nweek.\" Perhaps they do. But it is the lack of balance of their work\nthat is our concern. If they worked 80 hours a week, it would not be\nenough if teaching was neglected. The public expects, the students need\nand our financial condition requires that teaching be restored to equal\nstatus with research.\nA recently completed audit of classroom contact hours by the\nUniversity of California faculty in 36 sample departments picked at\nrandom on the nine University campuses reveals an average of only 4.3\nhours in the classroom each week. We all know and readily concede that\nsome of the more demanding disciplines may require greater research.\nBut how is it that full professors in physics an area in which the\nUniversity of California possibly leads the world managed to spend\nmore time with their students than professors in the sociology\ndepartment?\nThe University supplies figures which suggest at best that the\noverall average time spent in the classroom by the regular faculty was\n6.7 hours per week for 1969-70 and is expected to be 7.2 hours for the\ncurrent year, rather than the traditional standard of nine.\nEquivalent figures for the State Colleges show an average teaching\ntime of 10.3 hours rather than the traditional 12. But unlike the\nUniversity, State College administrators assure us they are restoring\nthe 12 hour teaching load.\n- 5 -\nCommonwealth Club\nI have long argued that the University need not turn away a single\nstudent (as they threatened to do if budgets are not increased). All\nthat is necessary is that the faculty spend in the classroom the number\nof hours they are expected to devote to teaching.\nOur budget for the University is based on a student-faculty ratio\nthat assumes the faculty will teach nine hours a week.\nCLASSROOM UTILIZATION\nCalifornia's Coordinating Council for Higher Education has found\nthat one third of the University's undergraduate classes had enrollments\nof 14 or fewer students; more than 15 percent of the classes taught had\nnine or fewer students. Perhaps this is an ideal. Yet in some subjects\nif a class is that small, could it be taught less frequently, and would\na small increase in the number of students jeopardize educational\nexcellence?\nClearly, in view of the public reluctance to vote bond issues for\ncapital expansion, we must seek alternate ways of providing classroom\nspace for the additional students who are entering our system of higher\neducation. More careful scheduling of classes might be a way to do this.\nFACULTY SALARIES\nWe are proud in California to attract to our faculty the most sought\nafter scholars. We believe in a fair wage and we feel that quality\nteachers are the best possible investment for the long-run benefit of our\nyoung people and our institutions. However, it is hard to reconcile the\ncry of economic starvation with the fact that of the top 66 salaries\npaid by state government (those above $42,000 a year) 57 go to personnel\nin our higher education system.\nIn fact, the total cost of the dozen top positions in the University\nis more than the top dozen highest offices in state government. We are\ntold that our University has fallen drastically in comparison to other\nuniversities in faculty pay level. Still, salaries in our system of\nhigher education are in the upper five percent of all the Universities\nin the nation. And, unlike a number of other universities, we have not\nproposed any salary cuts.\nConsidering those facts, we might question the charge of an under-\npaid faculty, particularly when it is remembered that these salaries are\nbased on a nine-month academic year. In the remaining three months, the\nindividual professor or instructor is free to earn additional income\nthrough extra summer session teaching, consultantships or even in the\npursuit of the vocation for which his academic training equips him.\n- 6 -\nCommonwealth Club\nIn our efforts to meet the state's responsibility to higher\neducation, we have not simply picked arbitrary budget figures. The\nDirector of Finance and his staff would like to be able to O.K. the\npurchase without asking the price. Obviously they can't, so they have\ntried to be helpful and cooperative in finding ways to make the education\ndollar go as far as possible. An audit of 36 major departments in the\nUniversity indicates there are potential savings if the faculty teaching\nload will simply be brought up to the minimum standard the University\nitself prescribes. There might be an additional dividend.\nA college poll of 100 institutions across the county reports that\nthe three most frequently mentioned grievances by students all relateto\nteaching, or lack of contact with the faculty. My own conversations with\nstudents bears this out.\nOur young people want to associate with the professors whose names\nthey read in the catalog. Their desire for greater personal contact\nwith the faculty coincides with the need of higher education to\nre-emphasize teaching.\nAgain let me point out that professors cannot unilaterally decide\non shorter hours and higher pay for a bigger slice of the pie without\nreducing the slice for others either the taxpayer through higher taxes\nor other government agencies with vital services to perform. If the\nlatter, which function would they reduce---help for the mentally ill, the\nsize of the highway patrol, our senior citizens? or perhaps we should\ngive up our efforts to control pollution of air and water?\nROLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION\nHigher education not only in California but throughout the nation is\nundergoing a major period of change and challenge, and at the moment it\nis to a certain extent failing to meet the real needs of the students\nthemselves and society.\nIn some disciplines, we have trained more Ph. D.s than we need or\nour economy can absorb. In some, students are enrolled in Ph.D. programs\nfor an unconscionable length of time. There are serious questions whether\nthe traditional path of secondary school to college to graduate degree,\nin a one-two-three pattern, is really best either for the individual or\nfor society. Long-accepted practices must be reviewed and tested against\nreality.\n- 7 -\nCommonwealth Club\nBoth our state University and our State Colleges must provide\nbetter information to students so these students can make more rational\nchoices of an academic course and career. They need to find more\neffective ways to measure such factors as ability and interest in planning\ncollege programs for the tremendous numbers of young people who wish to\npursue education beyond the high school level.\nMore than half our students who enroll fail to finish their full\nfour years of college. This is a tragic waste. It is reasonable to ask\nwhether many of them were really ready for college at the time they\nenrolled, or perhaps, for some whether college was really the right choice\nWe need open minds and fresh thinking; we need cooperative efforts\nbetween society and its institutions.\nWe do not need threats that faculty members will flee to higher\npaying jobs which do not, except in rare cases, exist.\nWe need fewer fables, less emotion, and more of the reason that we\nhave traditionally associated with higher education.\nI am proud to be able to say that in the last several years the\nnation, and indeed the world, has learned to expect innovation and\nexcellence from California. Why not in this? Working together, in a\nspirit of cooperation, guided by a sincere desire to fulfill what the\nstudents, our citizens and our civilization expect from higher education,\nwe can meet this challenge.\nLet me suggest four short-term goals.\n1. That we expect faculty members to fulfill the traditional and\nreasonable amount of teaching or student contact that higher education\nhas established for itself: nine hours in the University, 12 hours in\nthe State Colleges and 15 hours in the community colleges. And that the\nlegislature spell this out, through legislative mandate as other states\nare doing.\nHEALTH SCIENCES\n2. That we seek alternatives to costly new physical facilities,\nparticularly in such vital areas as health sciences, and seek other ways\nof meeting the need for additional physicians. As just one option, I am\nstrongly supporting legislation that would allow us to explore with\nprivate universities in California the University of Southern California\nStanford, Loma Lindaand the University of Pacific which are now\nconsidering their capacity to provide an increased number of the new\nphysicians we need. These institutions have indicated that for\napproximately $12,000 per year per student, they can collectively increase\nour production of new physicians by 178 a year.\n- 8 -\nCommonwealth Club\nSuch a medical school scholarship program would cost about one\nfifth of the interest alone on the University's proposal for another\n$294 million construction bond, to say nothing of the $60 million in\nongoing yearly operating costs that would follow this construction.\nINDEPENDENT AUDITS\n3. In order to strengthen and preserve the University's separate\nconstitutional status, we must guard against dictating policy decisions\nthrough the political process. So I will offer to the Board of Regents\na proposal for regular, independent audits to help the Regents in\nmaking policy decisions.\nSTUDENT BILL OF RIGHTS\n4. Finally, I propose that the Regents adopt a Student Bill of\nRights that would include these points:\n--Regardless of their economic status, students have an opportunity\nto continue their education to the maximum of their ability and interest.\n--Students be given enough information about higher education to\nmake them able to choose within reason their own specific goals.\n--Students have a right to continue their education without\ninterruptions, without threats of violence, without disorder. And they\nhave a right to be taught by a faculty which includes teaching as one\nof its highest priorities.\n--Finally, they have a right to hear and digest all sides of all\nmajor issues, to weigh alternatives which include the whole spectrum\nof America's values and political opinions from the middle out to and\nincluding the extremes.\nLet me quote from just one letter I have received from a student in\none of our state institutions. He told me he was in college through\nwork on his part plus a great deal offamily sacrifice and he said:\n\"I'm being cheated---all too often I must write essays from the New Left\nviewpoint in order to get good grades. Three papers were returned with\nprogressively better grades in direct proportion to my discovery that\nonly by submitting work with the New Left line would my grade improve.\nMy last paper dealt with U.S. involvement in Vietnam and could have\nbeen written by a North Vietnamese minister's aide. It received the\nhighest grade in the class.\"\n- 9 -\nCommonwealth Club\nI make no estimate of how widespread this is, but from the number\nof similar letters I have read and from the concern expressed to me by\ngroups of faculty members I know his is not an isolated case. By the\nsame token I know there are a great many in the academic community who\nwant true academic freedom, freedom of speech but not freedom to\npropagandize a captive audience. The latter threatens free speech\nand the entire system of free education.\nIn California we found the inspiration, the intellectual genius and\nthe sheer physical engineering capacity for man to reach out to the stars\nSurely we can find the way to preserve and protect the system of\nhigher education that made such a journey possible. Together we can\nreach across a generation gap---can respond to the concerns of our sons\nand daughters who must carry forward man's search for knowledge.\nTogether we can reclaim for higher education its proper role as\nguardian, advocate and inspiration for all the lasting values of our\ncivilization.\n######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be additions\nto, or changes in the above text. However, the governor will\nstand by the above quotes).\n- 10 -\n/\n#\ndi\n-\n3\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nRELEASE: WF NESDAY P.Ms.\nSacramento, California\nJL., 23, 1971\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n6-23-71\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nTOWN HALL, LOS ANGELES\nJune 23, 1971\nDid you ever get the feeling you were reliving an experience you\nhad had once before?\nOnce again you have provided your prestigious forum and made it\npossible for me to speak to you and through you to the people of\nCalifornia, It is my intention to try to cut through some of the\nconfusion surrounding the issues of welfare reform, tax reform and the\nbudget which is due in just seven days.\nIf you are confused it is easily understandable.\nYou have been told the budget cannot be balanced without tax\nincreases of anywhere from $250 million to $750 million; that our welfare\nreforms are unworkable and our projected savings from these reforms\ninaccurate and impossible to prove. And you have been promised relief\nfrom the onerous burden of property tax in two different tax reform plans.\nwhich actually do not guarantee such relief will be permanent or even\nlong-lasting but which do vastly increase the total amount of taxes you\nwill pay.\nIn my remarks at the inaugural last January, and again a week later\nin the State-of-the-State message to the legislature, I told you that\na balanced budget was possible without a tax increase. I tell you now\nwe can have a balanced budget without a tax increase if we are willing to\ntighten our belts and forego things which in better times might be\ndesirable in a budget but which are luxuries in this time of Leonomic\nstress. And if, in addition, we are willing to meet and deal with the\nlong overdue need for welfare reform.\nIn these next few days the choice between increased spending or\ngovernment economy will bring California to an unprecedented crisis,\nThe issue is not a difference of opinion as to whether a deficit due to\ndeclining revenues can be resolved with or without a tax increase. The\nissue is in truth a confrontation between two philosophies of government-\none holding that government exists to provide the people with services\ngovernment thinks are essential to their welfare and that government has\nthe right to take the people's resources for that purpose if the people\nlack the wisdom to provide those services for themselves, and the other\nthat government should do only those things the people cannot do for\nthemselves and do those things as efficiently and economically as possible\nI subscribe to the latter view and think most Californians do also.\nJustice Oliver Wendell Holmes called it \"keeping government poor and\nand remaining free.\"\n- 1 -\nTown Hall\nA few weeks ago we learned and you were told that the continuing\neconomic slump had reduced our expected revenues by another $200 million.\nFaced with this new crisis Assemblyman Willie Brown, chairman of\nthe Ways and Means Committee, responded by adding $318 million to the\nbudget we had proposed. Our own response was that adoption of\n\"withholding\" in the collection of personal income tax would produce\nsufficient additionalrevenue to meet the crisis without increasing the\ntax rates, provided, of course, we did not add any new spending to the\nbudget.\nIn other words, cutting through all the rhetoric of charge and\ncounter-charge, if the legislature will pass the $6.7 billion budget we\nsubmitted, give us the welfare reform we asked for and adopt withholding,\nCalifornia can still have a balanced budget and the maintenance of\nessential state services without a tax increase.\nI think this is what the people of California want. I cannot\nbelieve there is widespread agreement with Senator Moscone's statement\nthat \"Californians are getting away with murder and should pay more\ntaxes.\" Reflecting that philosophy, the budget proposed in the state\nSenate has an added billion dollars in new spending (give or take a few\nmillion). On the Assembly side, the increase is holding at roughly about\none-quarter of that amount.\nYou are entitled to know the reasoning behind my position. In the\nfirst place, Californians are already the second highest taxpaying\ncitizens in the nation. Four years of economy have taken us from the\nlargest budget in the nation to third behind New York State and even\n/roughly\nNew York City. Still our cost for state government pro-rates out to\n$1,350 per year for the average family of four. Add a like amount for\nlocal taxes and you have only figured one-third of the total tax burden.\nThe rest is federal.\nI do not believe that government should continue doing business as\nusual by adding a tax increase to the burden our people are already\ncarrying.\nSome of the new spending advocated by the majority leadership is. to\nprovide additional money for a pay raise for state employees and more\nmoney for schools and higher education. Admittedly these are all\ndesirable and are things we wish could be included in the budget, but\nnot at the cost of increased taxes.\nTown Hall\nI have asked our employees to do without a cost of living salary\nincrease in the coming year. I take no great joy in that because we\nhave the finest employees to be found in government anywhere. They will\nreceive the usual merit pay raise which affects about 40 percent of them.\nAnd we have managed to include in the budget a number of important\nchanges they have long wanted unemployment insurance, time and a half\nfor overtime, differential pay for night work, improved retirement\nbenefits and an increased state contribution to their health program.\nMay I point out there have been four straight years of cost of living\nincreases for state employees totaling 21 percent which even with no\nincrease in the coming year will still be a greater salary increase than\nin any other similar period.\nContrary to what you are constantly told, state aid for public\nschools has gone up more in the last four years than in any other four-\nyear period in California history. From 1958 to 1967 teachers' salary\nincreases averaged 4.5 percent a year. Since 1967 they have averaged\n7 percent. The annual state subvention to public schools is half a\nbillion dollars greater than it was four years ago but there has been\nno increase in the quality of education. In fact the major complaint\nis that quality of education has continued to decline. If there is to\nbe a further increase in state spending, the people have a right to ask\nfor some assurance that it will produce an improvement in the quality\nof education.\nOur funding for higher education in the past four years has been\ngreater than in any other similar period. Since the previous\nadministration, the budget for the University has increased 40 percent;\nthe state colleges have matched a 69 percent enrollment rise with an\n88 percent budget increase. And state aid to community colleges has\ngone up 151 percent, 2½ times faster than enrollment. We have quadrupled\nour student aid programs.\nAgain, let me say I believe the people have a right to ask that\nthrough this temporary period of economic dislocation when they must\nhold the line on their own spending that government do the same. After\nall, if our tax revenues declined $200 million below expectations, the\npeople's earnings and ability to buy must have gone down a great deal\nmore than $200 million.\nThe legislature has been in session 24 weeks. It has been 16 weeks\nsince you were kind enough to let me set forth our welfare reform\nproposals.\nTown Hall\nOn that day sixteen weeks ago, we proposed a program that would\nchange welfare's direction from a certain pathway to bankruptcy to a\nsystem that offers dignity and the prospect of an even higher level of\nsupport to those who really need help. We proposed a program that would\nhave the state assume the full cost of supporting our needy senior\ncitizens, the blind, the disabled---and to provide this support not\nwithin the demeaning welfare system, but through a pension program\nsimilar to Social Security.\nWe proposed a program that would give our over-taxed and impatient\ncitizens the potential of a welfare system that would ultimately lessen\nits demands for tax revenue a system that would reduce the number of\npeople dependent upon public assistance by requiring those who are able-\nbodied to seek work, to train for a job or to help meet through the\ndignity of work some of the public service needs of the generous society\nthat supports them.\nThat program has been before our lawmakers in Sacramento for almost\nfour months. The governor of New York asked for our plan after we had\nsubmitted it to our own legislators. He took part of it, added his own\nproposals to it, submitted it to his legislators and signed it into law\non April 7.\nHere it has been dissected, debated, argued over and amended. We\namended it ourselves when some counties expressed fears that their\nwelfare costs would be increased. We did not agree that those fears were\nwell-founded, but to give the counties an iron-clad guarantee that they\nwould not have increased costs, we amended our proposal to make that\nassurance official.\nI repeat the pledge I made in your presence on March \"there\nwill be no added costs to the counties and no additional burden to\nproperty taxpayers.\" Most county officials have reviewed our amendments\nand know this to be true.\nOur figures on potential savings if welfare reform is enacted hav\nbeen challenged and picked at on an almost daily basis.\nThose figures are the result of a year's study and research by a\nTask Force working with county welfare officials throughout the state.\nAnd they have been confirmed by a team of career professional\nstatisticians in the Department of Social Welfare, utilizing exhaustive\nfield research material and computer analysis.\n4\nTown Hall\nI have full confidence in our projections. In fact, we have been\nso careful we probably have underestimated the real savings that can\nactually be achieved.\nTomorrow we will release the new welfare figures for May. These\nfigures will confirm a definite decline in the total number of people on\nthe second month in a row\nwelfare in California for/ even in the face of serious unemployment.\nSome of this is caused by our regulation changes. Some, no doubt,\nby our constant repetition of the need for tighter eligibility and a\nwork requirement.\nEncouraging as these figures are, they are at the same time\ntantalizing in the extreme:\nFor if we can cause a dent in the caseload simply by talking about\nthe need for reform\n/and tightening the regulations, just think what we could do if the\nlegislature would give us the legal authority to really reform welfare.\nIt has been personally frustrating for me to hear over and over\nagain the false charge that I refuse to negotiate or accept any kind of\ncompromise. From the first week of this session I have asked the\nmajority leaders of both houses to join with us in a bipartisan approach\nto the major problems of welfare tax reform. The people sent a majority\nof Democrats to the legislature and a majority of Republicans to the\nexecutive branch. They must have intended a bipartisan solution to the\nstate's problems. There are responsible Democratic members of both\nchambers who have tried to join their Republican colleagues in such an\nendeavor. Unfortunately this is not the position of the Majority Party\nLeadership. They have chosen a less productive course.\nWe won agreement from the Democratic leadership that welfare reform\nwould be resolved with the budget. After all, a budget can hardly be\nadopted or revenue needs known if the subject of welfare, our biggest\ncost item, is left up in the air.\nWith their agreement, I envisioned a series of meetings in which\nwe would negotiate our differences. They would tell us what was\nunacceptable in our plan offer their own proposals and we would wind up\nknowing at least how much of our welfare reform the legislature would\napprove.\nWhen weeks went by with no such meetings taking place, I again called\nthe legislative leadership of both parties together. It was then we were\ntold our welfare reform would die in committee.\n- 5 -\nTown Hall\nThe committee chairman had built his own reform plan (without\nbenefit of any negotiations). It was presented to us as a compromise\nsince he had borrowed several points from ours.\nIt is not a compromise and it is not welfare reform. It ignores\n75 percent of the areas of abuse we are trying to correct. In short,\nit offers only what we have now--the continuation of a discredited\nwelfare system that is failing its humanitarian purpose, and the\ntaxpayers who support it.\nFinally, this alternative we have been offered adds hundreds of\nmillions of dollars to the projected cost of welfare under our proposal.\nTo those who say our welfare reform is dead, that it has been kille\nby the action of one committee, my answer is that the California\nlegislative process is not that inflexible. The essential elements of\ntrue welfare reform can still be enacted through amendments it does\nnot matter whose name is listed as author.\nPut\nanother way it is not parliamentary blasphemy to suggest that\nwhat one committee has torn asunder, a majority of legislators can join\ntogether again.\nOurs is a reasonable program with humanitarian goals and it can be\nenacted into law. It does not take four months more to pass it. It can\nbe passed in four days if a sufficient number of legislators can be\nconvinced that the people want this problem solved before it destroys us.\nThe pattern I have just outlined was followed with regard to tax\nreform.\nMeeting with the speaker of the Assembly early in January, I said I\nwould not reintroduce my tax reform plan and suggested that Democratic\nand Republican leaders in the legislature meet with me in a bipartisan\nattempt to hammer out a mutually acceptable bill which could then be\nsubmitted to the legislature for passage. This suggestion was\nenthusiastically received by the new speaker. The next word I had on the\nsubject was a last minute statement that they would announce their own\nplan. It was introduced in the Assembly followed by charges that I had\nviolated my campaign promise by not introducing tax reform of my own.\nA bi-partisan effort did go forward in the Senate and only after\nit became clear these negotiations were stalled did we then offer our own\ntax reforms to the legislature. We were willing to make adjustments and\ncertainly willing to agree to any authorship the majority party proposed.\nThe main goal was to provide tax relief for the homeowner.\nTown Hall\nThe only area in which we could not compromise was that tax reform\nmust not be used as a device to increase the overall tax burden.\nIf the taxpayer ends up paying more, in my book, that is not tax\nreform. That is a tax increase. And that is what some of the majority\nleadership seems determined to enact.\nThe figures they claim for tax relief sound intriguing. But they\ndo not tell you what is hidden in the fine print.\nOne of the plans they offer which they call a \"compromise\" actually\nwould mean a phased income tax increase of $965 million\n60 percent more money than the state now collects from income taxes.\nUnder this plan, it would be possible for a citizen over 60 who\nowned a $60,000 home to pay no property taxes at all while the married\nhomeowner in the $10,000 to $15,000 a year income bracket actually would\nwind up with an overall tax increase.\nAnother of the so-called tax reforms carries with it a large tax\nincrease and also utilizes the one-time windfall that accrues in the\nfirst year of withholding. This is a built-in tax time bomb.\nOngoing programs are financed for one year by this one-time windfall\nand then comes the discovery that the program has a second and third\nand fourth and fifth year and so on into the future and revenue must be\nfound for each of those succeeding years.\nAs I said earlier neither of these bills has any provision to\nguarantee that the reduction to the homeowner will not be wiped out by\nnew property tax increases. It took only 18 months for that $750\nexemption the state provided in 1968 to be completely wiped out and now\nyou are paying higher property taxes than you were before the exemption.\nOur proposal offers a sliding scale of homeowner relief ranging\nfrom a 100 percent cut on the lowest price homes to 20 percent on those\nabove $47,000. And we include spending controls to ensure you keep\nthose reductions. In the $25,000 price range tax bills would be cut\n34 percent.\nThere would be further savings because:\nWe would reimburse the counties for 60 percent of most of their\nwelfare costs over and above a basic 25 cents of the county\"s tax rate.\n-We would shift to the state the cost of financing the veterans\nproperty tax exemption, and have the state assume a substantial part of\nthe\ncosts\nof\nour\ncourts\nburden that has been growing in recent years.\n- 7 -\nTown Hall\nTo finance this tax reform, there would be, among other changes:\n--an increase in the state sales tax---not to exceed one cent.\n--an increase in bank and corporation taxes this year and next year.\n--an increase in the higher income tax brackets.\n--a reduction of the oil depletion allowance to increase the state's\nrevenue from the oil industry in conformity with the lower depletion\nallowance adopted by the federal government, and a minimum income tax.\nIncidentally, this is the second consecutive year that I have\nproposed a minimum income tax.\nI have spoken of \"withholding\" as a way of replacing our lost\nrevenues and also of the one time windfall so let me make sure there is\nno misunderstanding about these items.\nWithholding catches each year an estimated $20 million not now being\ncollected, the so-called cheaters. In addition, it picks up some $75\nmillion a year as incomes go up and new jobs are added and another $75\nmillion is money that represents over-payments by the taxpayers money\nwhich the state can use until it is returned to the taxpayer. By that\ntime, another $75 million has been overpaid so the state's revenues are\nactually increased about $170 million through withholding.\nEighteen months ago, when I reluctantly gave up my opposition to\nwithholding I did so because our cash flow problem made it necessary.\nI informed the legislature that our cash needs by October of this year\nwould force us to sell tax anticipation notes or tax warrants unless we\nhad withholding in time to give us an even cash flow throughout the year.\nWithholding was part of the tax reform we presented last year which failed\nby one vote in the Senate, even though it had the votes of 78 percent of\nthe legislature. My prediction that we would have a cash shortage this\nOctober has been verified in fact, moved up by our economic crisis.\nOur cash flow problem will catch up with us in August and possibly July.\nThere is no reason why withholding should not have been passed early\nenough in this session to have gone into effect July 1 and there would\nthen be no need for tax anticipation notes or tax warrants. There is\nstill time to pass it and have it implemented by January 1 so at least\nthere will never again be a need for that kind of borrowing.\nWithholding also produces a one time windfall, the result of the\noverlap of collecting next year's tax by withholding between January 1\nand April 15 and collecting this year's tax on April 15. I had hoped that\nthis $500 million windfall could have been given back to the people much\nas we gave the 10 percent rebate a year ago.\n- 8 -\nTown Hall\n(\nNow, however, with the economic crisis delaying so much necessary\nconstruction and the need for local schools to meet earthquake\nconstruction standards, I am proposing that: half the money go back\nto the taxpayers and the other half be used for one time needs such as\nschool construction, community colleges and higher education buildings\nand park and recreational developments.\nBut why hasn't withholding been adopted? I was about the last\nholdout and I gave in a year and a half ago. There is a bill before the\nlegislature and withholding is part of the two Democratic tax reform\nproposals. Well, the Democraticleadership has let me understand that\nthey are holding it in order to buy some concessions from me. If it\nwas not so costly, that should be quite a laugh.\nThey are going to buy something from me, the one who had to be\npushed screaming and kicking into accepting what the Democrats have\nwanted for the last ten years?\nThey play games while the people of California undergo the added\nexpense of tax anticipation notes or tax warrants no wonder people\ndon't like the taste of politics.\nStill I say again--there are many fine men on both sides of the\naisle who want to achieve realistic reforms and a bipartisan solution to\nCalifornia's problems. Others unfortunately subscribe to a belief that\nthey can ignore the voice of the people in a non-election year and the\npeople will forget before election year rolls around.\nI do not accept this cynical view. I believe our system can and\nwill be responsive to the voice of the people if the people demand to be\nheard.\nIn the few days just ahead, it is reasonable to assume that I will\nbe presented with a budget out of balance by reason of additional\nspending proposals. There will be an additional $200 million deficit\nbecause of the reduction in revenues and because withholding will not\nhave been adopted to cover that deficit. And there will be no welfare\nreform legislation so more millions of dollars will be added to the\nimbalance.\n- 9 -\nTown Hall\nThen, with the need to have a budget as the Constitution requires\nadding urgency to the situation, those who are philosophically bent on\nincreasing the size and cost of government will offer to negotiate.\nTheir goal will be to strike a bargain in which I agree to a goodly\nportion of their increased spending proposals in return For some\nconcessions on welfare reform and possibly withholding; and that I 5\nthem in proposing tax increases to cover the additional new spending.\nThey believe in tax increases, but they don't like being out there all\nby themselves when the time comes to be held responsible.\n(I suppose we have been on our way to this confrontation for four\nand one-half years). The price they are asking of me in their\nirresponsible partisanship is one that would have to be paid by the\npeople of California. It is a price I will not ask the people to pay.\nA workable, practical budget can be balanced without a tax increase by\nthe adoption of withholding and a meaningful welfare reform.\nIt is my position that we can and must learn to live within our\npresent income. I hope I have your support.\n######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be additions\nto, or changes in the above text. However, the governor will\nstand by the above quotes).\n- 10 -"
}