Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564454",
    "label": "Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1974 [01/01/1974-05/08/1974]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564454"
}

{
    "id": "118564454",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564454",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1974 [01/01/1974-05/08/1974]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564454",
    "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-P19-004-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P19-004-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P19-004-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564454",
    "naId": 118564454,
    "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-P19-004-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "3f1429771cc5bf5c",
    "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, 1974\n[01/01/1974-05/08/1974]\nBox: P19\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/\n1974\nINDEX\nP30\n2\n1-9-74\nState of the State Address\n2-0-74\nCallfornia Trucking Association\n2\n2-7-74\nMessage to the Legislature (Employee Benefits)\n2\n2-11-74\nGreater Dallas Crime Commission\n4-19-74\nBetter Business Bureau of Santa Clara Valley Luncheon\nlaws\n4-19-74\nRepublican State Central Committee\n2\n5-1-74\nLaw Day\n2 5-4-74\nVietnam Military Memorial Ceremony\n2\n5-8-74\nState Women's and Men's Club Luncheon\n2\n5-9-74\nCalifornia Association for the Retarded Convention\n2\n5-22-74\nCalifornia International Trade Conference\n2\n5-30-74\nCalifornia State Employees Assn. Institute on Government\n2\n5-30-74\nRegional Occupation Centers Completion Ceremonies\n2\n6-12-74\nCalifornia Sheriff's Association, Palo Alto\n8-9-74\nNational Young Republicans Convention, South Lake Tahoe, Nevada\n8-29-74\nfor\nDon\nPeterson\n9-6-74\nSacramento Host Breakfast, Sacramento\n10-15-74\nAmerican Trucking Association Board of Directors, San Francisco\n11-14-74\nUnited States League of Savings Association, San Francisco\n12-4-74\nGovernor's Conference on Criminal Justice, Sacramento\n1/9\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: AFTER 11 A.M. WEDNESDAY\nSacramento, California 95814\nJANUARY 9, 1974\nClyde Walthall, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n1-8-74\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\n\"CALIFORNIA A LODESTAR OF PROGRESS\"\n\"We are a showcase of the future. And\nit is within our power to mold that\nfuture this year and for decades to\ncome No crisis is beyond the capacity\nof our people to solve; no challenge\ntoo great.\nSTATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS\nBEFORE A JOINT SESSION OF THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE\nBY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nJanuary 9, 1974\nFor many of us, this occasion has more than the usual significance.\nNext year, some of you will pursue other avenues of public service.\nAnd some of us will be going on to the highest calling of all that\nof\nprivate citizen.\nYet, whatever path we follow as individuals, the effective\nfunctioning of government will go forward uninterrupted. More than any\nwords of praise, that is the most eloquent tribute to the enduring\nstrength of our system.\nUsually, at this time, it is my task to set forth a series of goals\nfor the year ahead.\nBut the energy crisis has created some unique challenges for our\nstate and our country this year. So I shall also ask you to join me in\nmaking decisions to assure progress and prosperity for California not\njust for the year ahead, but for decades.\nWhen I first appeared before you seven years ago, I expressed my\nbelief that nothing is impossible for a people who place their ultimate\nfaith in divine guidance and a government which has faith in the people\nit serves.\nAs someone new to government, bringing the perspective of a concerned\ncitizen, I said: \"California, with its climate, its resources, and its,\nwealth of young, aggressive, talented people, must never take second\nplace. We can provide jobs for all our people who will work and we can\nhave honest government at a price we can afford. Indeed, unless we\naccomplish this, our problems will go unsolved, our dreams unfulfilled\nand we will know the taste of ashes.\"\n- 1 -\nThose beliefs have only been strengthened by my experience these\npast seven years.\nYou and I and other officials who preceded you have traveled a long\nroad together. We have achieved much and we have experienced crisis,\nincluding the fiscal insolvency that confronted our state in 1967.\nWe have worked together and we have, on a few occasions, strongly\ndisagreed. And on some issues we have all tasted a few ashes.\nToday, I would like to review some of the problems we faced and\nmeasure our progress. And, I would also like to share a few impressions\nwhich I hope you will receive in the sincere spirit they are offered.\nAnyone who occupies the corner office downstairs has a unique view\nof the vast and sometimes slow moving process of government, the pressures\nand the pitfalls. Nor can you avoid forming strong opinions of how we\nmight do things better, be more effective in meeting our responsibilities.\nYears after he drafted the Declaration of Independence, Thomas\nJefferson recalled his role in casting those noble phrases that still\nguide our country. He said while the words were his, the theme of\nliberty and justice reflected the sentiments of \"all America.\"\nThe sentiments I express to you, some reforms I shall suggest, are\nnot mine alone. I believe they reflect the views of most of the people\nof California.\nThere is a feeling among our people of distrust and cynicism toward\npublic affairs and public officials. It matters little that some of the\nevents which contribute to this cynicism are not of our making.\nOur people know we face many crucial decisions. And they expect\ntheir elected officials to make those decisions, based only on what is\nbest for the future of this state and nation, on what is best for all\nthe people.\nThis is an election year. But it is not a time for politics as\nusual. Our people are weary of partisanship and discord.\nHarry Truman once said a statesman is what they call a politician\nafter he is safely dead. At this moment in our history, what we need is\nmore live statesmen at every level of public life. Government's only\nreason for existing is to serve the people. If we are to serve their\nneeds, we must cast politics aside. We must demonstrate that government\ndeserves the public's trust.\nWe can be proud of what we have already achieved.\nWe have reordered priorities to control costs and assure funds for\nessential services. We have cut, squeezed and trimmed and at every\nopportunity, returned the benefit of those savings to the people.\n2\nThe tax relief these past seven years totals more than $4 billion.\nThere have been three income tax rebates. This year it is a 20-35\npercent rebate for most taxpayers and we are totally eliminating the\n1973 state income tax for families earning $8,000 or less.\nHomeowners are getting lower property tax bills this year because\nof the property tax exemptions. We have expanded senior citizens'\nproperty tax relif, adopted tax credits for renters, cut the inventory\ntax in half and provided tax incentives to preserve agricultural and\ngreenbelt areas.\nState support for public schools has almost doubled while enrollment\nwas going up less than 6 percent. Funds for scholarships are up seven\ntimes what they were and support for community colleges and our\nuniversity and state college system has increased almost twice as fast\nas enrollment.\n/under\nOnly a few years ago, the teachers' retirement system was an funded\nactuarial nightmare, a potential $4 billion tax burden. It is now\nsoundly financed and the pensions our teachers earn are protected by this\nstronger fiscal base.\nFaced by higher costs and possible delays, we found ways to complete\nthe great California Water Project on time, without massive new tax\nburdens.\nNone of this would have been possible without the reforms and\nreorganizations which have streamlined state government and controlled\nits growth in size and cost.\nOur community mental health program and the welfare reform we\nadopted have become models for the nation. Welfare is no longer growing\nby 40,000 a month; at last count there were 384,000 fewer people on the\nrolls than when we started our reforms. We have increased benefits for\nthe truly needy and mainly because of welfare reform, basic property tax\nrates are down this year in 45 of our 58 counties.\nWe created a Consumer Affairs Department which has won national\nacclaim. We have expanded the mutual aid program to help police cope\nwith riots and other emergencies, toughened the penalties for violent\ncrimes. And those steps have been effective. The total increase in\nseven major crimes showed almost zero growth in 1972.\nThe death rate on our highways has gone down a full 20 percent since\n1967.\nOne thing is clear: we served the people best when we paid more\nattention to the problems and less to the politics.\n3 1 I\nState-of-the-State\nThe issue demanding our attention this year is the energy crisis.\nTo minimize its potential impact would be a disservice to the people.\nWe know it will affect almost every part of the economy and every citizen\nand we must all join in meeting this challenge.\nBalanced Budget - No Tax Increase\nIt will reduce our anticipated revenues. Although economic activity\nis expected to be reasonably strong in 1974, there will be a downturn\nfrom previous forecasts. But to answer one question you may have:\nthe budget I present to you this week will be balanced. The scheduled\nincome tax rebates and property tax reductions will go forward. I see\nno need for any general tax increases this next fiscal year.\nEnergy Crisis\nMany factors beyond the control of any individual or state have led\nto our present energy problems. The cutoff of Arabian produced oil is\nan important cause. But it is only one factor.\nWe have just been consuming energy faster than we have been\ndeveloping new sources of fuel and electric power. The drain on existing\nresources has been increased by higher fuel demands of smog controlled\nautomobile engines. At the same time, industry and utilities have been\ninhibited or prevented from using available fuel because of requirements\nnecessary to meet stricter environmental standards.\nCalifornia was first to recognize the smog problem and first to do\nsomething about it. We have adopted strong measures to clean up the air\nand water.\nI do not believe we need abandon this environmental progress. But\nwhere energy needs conflict with environmental goals, we must strike a\nreasonable balance. It will do little good for someone to have all the\ngasoline he can use, if he has no job to drive to because the industry for\nwhich he worked is shut down by an energy or fuel shortage.\nThe Energy Planning Council, headed by Lieutenant Governor Ed\nReinecke, has been closely coordinating our programs to minimize the\nenergy crisis in California.\nShort Term Steps\nA poet once said:\n\"The best of ways to lengthen our days\nIs to steal a few hours from the night. \"\nWell, we have already done that nationally with Daylight Savings Time.\n--You acted in special session to reduce speed limits on California\nhighways to 55 miles per hour, to save on gasoline use.\n- 4 -\n--By executive order, we seek a 10 percent reduction in automobile\nmileage by state vehicles; we have encouraged car pools and taken steps\nto reduce unnecessary state travel.\nIf we can achieve comparable reductions by the general public,\nthere is a potential savings in oil of 120,000 barrels a day in the\nnext year.\nBy turning off the central plant that heats downtown Sacramento\nstate buildings four hours each night and on weekends, by resetting\nthermostats, we achieved a substantial cutback in the use of heat and\nfuel and power.\nBecause conservation, eliminating unnecessary use of fuel and power,\nis one of the most effective short term solutions, I am today asking\nCalifornia motorists to reduce their own personal gasoline consumption\nby a minimum of 10 percent. I also ask every family and every business\nto reduce energy use 10 percent by taking similar steps in their homes,\noffices, and other places of business.\nOpen Elk Hills Reserve\nWe have made a formal request to the federal government to open the\nElk Hills Naval Oil Reserve to pump enough oil to meet current military\nrequirements. This would free the oil and gasoline the military now\nconsumes to meet civilian needs while we work toward more permanent\nsolutions.\nThe State Lands Commission has lifted restrictions against off-shore\noil drilling; the Air Resources Board has deferred the oxides of nitrogen\n(NOX) control program for 1966-70 automobiles, a step that will save an\nestimated 100 million gallons of gasoline a year.\nCalifornia stands ready to cooperate fully in any national program\nto conserve and fairly apportion available fuel and electric power.\nBecause agriculture is the backbone of our economy, it must have a\nhigh priority, along with industry. Any severe cutbacks of energy for\nindustry and agriculture mean fewer jobs. We must frankly recognize that\nour economic vitality depends on sufficient energy and fuel for these\nessential uses.\nWe are acting to meet the energy crisis. If necessary, we will\ntighten our belts and button our sweaters and do all that must be done\nto minimize the hardships and dislocations. But you and I also must act\nthis year to meet our energy needs on a permanent basis.\n- 5 -\nLong Term Steps\nFor three years, we have asked for legislation to streamline the\nways by which environmentally protected nuclear power plant sites are\nauthorized and approved. We are prepared to work with you to reconcile\nour obvious differences. But we must act soon.\nBy 1990, America's energy requirements are expected to double and\nby the end of the century, 45 percent of our electric power must be\ngenerated by nuclear power.\nWe cannot afford needless delays caused by those who cannot see that\npeople, too, are ecology. We saw an example of this only a few weeks ago\nwhen the state coastal commission rejected a plan to add new nuclear\ngenerating units at San Onofre.\nAdding these units would reduce our oil needs by 24 million barrels\na year and help protect against future blackouts and brownouts. This\nproject was approved by the Atomic Energy Commission, the state and\nregional water quality boards; air pollution and fish and game require-\nments were met. It was cleared by every unit of government except one\ncommission and even a majority of that commission favored it.\nConstruction of these and other nuclear units must go forward.\nTime is running out.\nSuper Port in California\nIn a few years, oil from Alaska's North Slope will be ready for\ndelivery. But the United States does not have any ports capable of\nhandling super-tankers. So we must plan now for the California facilities\nthat may be required to meet our oil needs.\nNew Hydroelectric Units\nExisting hydroelectric plants in California now generate power that\nwould otherwise require 65 million barrels of oil a year to produce.\nThe Department of Water Resources is exploring ways to expand this source\nof smog free electricity, possibly by adding new generating units at\nOroville and other existing dam sites.\nAlong with this, we must develop geothermal energy, move forward on\nsolar energy research, and every other promising means of meeting our\nenergy needs.\nThe energy problem is a crisis now. But it can be an historic\nopportunity to free America forever of dependence on unstable foreign oil\nthat can be turned on and off at will, by those who would use world\ncommerce for economic blackmail and coercion.\nIf we can put a man on the moon, we can find ways to heat and light\nour homes and industries.\nBut this crisis must not become a means of expanding bureaucracy or\ngiving vast powers to non-elected officials not directly accountable\nto the people.\nThe responsibility for solving the energy problem, for educational\nand economic policy, for crime control, for meeting all our needs, must\nalways rest with elected officials who answer to the people.\nAccountability is the key to assuring that government is responsive\nto the desires of the people.\nAcademy for Educational Management\nIn education today, one great need is more effective management of\nour schools. To help achieve this, we are planning an Academy for\nEducational Management which will help administrators gain the knowledge\nand experience necessary to assure maximum value for every dollar spent\non education. If successful on a test basis, it will become a non-profit\ncorporation serving the entire state.\nThis is an excellent example of state and local government\ncooperation on a major problem. And I would like to thank Dr. Richard\nClowes, Superintendent of the Los Angeles County Schools and his task\nforce which conceived and helped develop this concept.\nI do not believe California's parents accept, or will tolerate,\nthe closing of schools because of strikes. Essential public services must\nnever be interrupted or compromised by laor disputes that can be resolved\nby reasonable people, acting with reason. Any laws we adopt in this area\nmust not compromise the public's right to decide educational policy,\nthrough their elected local boards and elected officials.\nBut our schools and colleges should acknowledge the importance of\nsuperior teaching.\nWe will ask the Trustees of the California State Universities and\nColleges to establish a Doctor of Arts degree program, to give teaching\nthe professional recognition it deserves. We will seek the help of the\nstate Board of Education in devising ways to encourage excellence in\nteaching in the public schools.\nReducing Tax Burden\nI am sure you will not be stunned with surprise if I reveal that\neconomy in government is a special concern of mine. It is essential to\nreduce and limit the tax burden on our people if our free economic system\nis to survive. Even while differing over specifics, many of you have\nsaid (only recently) that legislative action can control the size and\ncost of government. I ask you to take that action this year.\n- 7 -\nConstitutional Amendment\nThe state Constitution now requires the governor to submit a\nbalanced budget and to propose higher taxes, if necessary, to make sure\nit is balanced. Since two safeguards are better than one, I shall ask\nyou to pass a Constitutional Amendment imposing the same restraint on\nthe legislative branch.\nIt will specify that the legislature must return to the governor a\nbalanced budget or propose additional taxes necessary to bring it into\nbalance.\nTo further encourage realistic budgeting, we will ask you to adopt\nlaws requiring that:\n--Any bill costing $1 million or more must include provisions for\nincreased revenues to finance it or specify a way to reduce the budget\nby an amount necessary to absorb the cost of the new program.\n--Every bill having a fiscal impact must include a synopsis\ndeclaring the bill's initial year cost and the cost for the following\n3 years.\n--Every bill imposing major new costs must have a separate fiscal\nanalysis noting whether it can be financed with existing revenues or\nwhether a tax increase is necessary. If higher taxes are required, this\nfact and the amount of new taxes required should be spelled out clearly\nand simply, in capital letters. By doing this, taxpayers will be able\nto more accurately identify the cost of new programs and decide for\nthemselves whether those proposing new costs are serving the people's\nbest interest.\nPhase Out Bridge Tolls\nTo merit the confidence of the people, government must keep faith\nwith the people. The tolls on state bridges originally were imposed to\npay off the revenue bonds that financed those structures. We are nearing\na time when these debts can be retired. And we should adopt a policy\nnow of phasing out bridge tolls as these bonds are paid.\nA Year of Action\nMany other things command our attention. The unified Departments\nof Transportation and Health are now operational, working on programs\nto meet the long range transportation and health needs of our people.\nIn 1974 and beyond, the state will become increasingly involved in\nhelping prevent and treat developmental disabilities that stem from\nepilepsy, mental retardation and cerebral palsy.\n- 8 -\nThe Department of Benefit Payments which you approved, will become\noperational in July and will consolidate the state's $5 billion a year\nfiscal operations in welfare, health, unemployment and disability programs\nAnother reorganization, the Department of Employment Development,\ncomes into being at a time when the energy crisis may put new strains on\nour economy.\nThe major emphasis is to develop new jobs and then direct qualified\nworkers to those jobs. We also plan to explore with leaders in labor and\nbusiness all possibilities of minimizing the unemployment impact of the\nenergy crisis.\nThe Community Work Experience program and that part of welfare\nreform which identified able bodied recipients as employable is being\nput into operation in all 35 designated counties. Last year, in those\ncounties with the community work program, 46 percent of employable\nwelfare recipients who registered found regular jobs.\nPermanent Ecology Corps\nThanks to bi-partisan support last year, California now has the\nnation's strongest forest practices regulations, augmenting our nationally\nrecognized efforts to fight air and water pollution. I will ask for\nsupport this year of a $250 million bond issue to help provide additional\nparks, to carry on wildlife conservation programs. The California\nEcology Corps, created by Executive Order, is a proven success in\nprotecting forest areas and providing wholesome work opportunities for\nyoung people. So I shall ask for a law to make it permanent.\nPrison for Gun Crimes\nThe California Council on Criminal Justice is being reorganized and\nrenamed the Office of Criminal Justice Planning. The Select Committee\non Law Enforcement Problems outlined other steps which we must take to\nstreamline our criminal justice system and otherwise strengthen our\nability to protect the law abiding. I will ask you to consider its\nrecommendations, particularly those which require stricter controls on\nprobation policies and the proposal to impose mandatory prison sentences\nfor those who commit a crime while armed.\nThis policy must be forcefully emphasized to the criminals. Those\nwho commit a crime with a qun must go to prison. Where there is any\ndoubt in granting probation or parole, the doubt must be resolved in\nfavor of protecting society.\n9\nState-of-the-State\nLocal Government Reform\nOur task force on local government reform will soon offer a\nsweeping review of our entire governmental structure and suggest ways\nto make it more accountable and better equipped to serve the people.\nOur goal is less government, but more effective government. To\nachieve this, all of us may find that the facts challenge many of our\nown long-held beliefs and assumptions.\nAlready, we have found that the authority of local government to\nmake its own decisions has been seriously eroded by state and federal\nmandates. So we will propose ways to restore local control in local\ngovernment, to make it easier to create smaller units of government\nand to consolidate where that best serves the people.\nElection Reforms\nFinally, a subject that touches the very heart of our system of\nelective responsibility: campaign and election reforms.\nThe integrity of the process by which we elect our public officials\nmust never be in doubt. The public is entitled to that assurance.\nIn recent years, an increasing use of the initiative (some\ninvolving complex subjects) has made the ballots long and far too\ncomplicated.\nAlong with campaign and disclosure requirements already in force,\nwe should eliminate conflicts of interest in all phases of the election\nprocess.\nLast year, you passed and I signed a law giving the legislative\ncounsel the responsibility of analyzing proposed ballot measures. It\nhad been divided between the legislative analyst and counsel.\nSince the legislature itself proposes constitutional amendments,\nisn't there a built-in conflict of interest to have any employee of the\nlegislature analyzing ballot measures for cost and content?\nThere also has been a greatly expanded role for the Secretary of\nState's office in the conduct of elections, in reporting campaign\ncontributions and with the growing use of computers, even in the\noperational details of elections.\nThose are responsibilities that cannot, in my opinion, be free of\nthe possibility of conflict of interest and bias unless the office\nitself is freed of partisanship.\n--Therefore, I shall ask you to propose to the people a Constitutional\nAmendment making the office of Secretary of State non-partisan, selected\non the same basis as the non-partisan state Superintendent of Public\nInstruction.\n10\nWe should also delegate to an independent Citizens Commission on\nElections the responsibility of analyzing initiatives and otherwise\nmonitoring election reforms, to protect the integrity of the entire\nelection process.\nSuch a commission could establish campaign and election policies\nin the same way the state Board of Education guides educational policy.\nWhat I have listed so far can make this a busy year, a year of\ndecision. There may be difficult choices. It is our duty to make them.\nIt is our duty to reconcile our differences, without regard for\npartisanship or personal ambitions.\nWe dare not condemn our society to economic, environmental and\nsocial stagnation because some fear change.\nIn the long sweep of history, all human progress has been based on\na willingness to face the next great challenge, to seek and achieve what\nhas before seemed unattainable.\nOur people have done that in California and America, on a scale\nunmatched anywhere on this globe. Their vision and skills have lifted\nman's horizons to the far reaches of space and beyond.\nWe have looked back on a proud past, but only to preserve the best\nof our heritage. In all other ways, we have looked forward, with courage\nand confidence.\nThose nations and states which have secured man's highest\naspirations for freedom, opportunity and justice, have always been those\nwilling to trust their people, confident that their skills and their\ntalents are equal to any challenge.\nThose societies which falter or merely survive are those which lack\nthis faith, which have been unwilling to do whatever it takes to excel.\nI believe our people want a state and a nation that points the way,\nthat is willing to work and struggle and overcome every barrier to the\nfulfillment of their own personal dreams and aspirations. If the people\nare prosperous, the state and the nation will be prosperous, and strong\nenough to protect freedom.\nIn the decades since World War II, California has been a place where\nmen still dare to think big and act boldly to reach their goals.\nIt has been our destiny to be a lodestar of progress, in agriculture,\nin industry, in sophisticated technology and in meeting the needs of our\npeople within a framework of freedom.\nWe are a showcase of the future. And it is within our power to mold\nthat future---this year and for decades to come. It can be as grand and\nas great as we make it.\nNo crisis is beyond the capacity of our people to solve; no challenge\ntoo great.\nIt will require a willingness to work, determination and faith\nfaith in ourselves, in our fellow citizens and in our system of freedom.\nBut if we hold fast to the great principles that gave birth to this\nnation and this state, if we are willing to work and reason together,\nwe can shape our own destiny. The problems of today can become the\nopportunities of tomorrow.\n#####\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes)\nto the\nthe\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nwednesday\nJanuary\nSacramento, California 95814\n12:00 pm\nClyde Walthall, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n2-5-74\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nExcerpts of Remarks by Governor Ronald Reagan\nCalifornia Trucking Association\nHotel del Coronado\nCoronado, California\nFebruary 6, 1974\nRight now, I know the energy crisis is your major concern, as it\nis with most Americans.\nYour industry is vital to California's overall prosperity. State\ngovernment's top priority must be to meet the needs of those essential\nindustries necessary to maintain a normal flow of commerce. Trucking\nis certainly one of these.\nOur goal is to do all we can possibly do to cut through the red\ntape and minimize the hardships of the energy crisis.\nAs you know, the Office of Fuel Allocation released some of the\nState's emergency (diesel) fuel reserves last month to keep the trucks\nrolling the last few days of January. We are hopeful the situation will\nbe better this month, although it is possible we could be feeling even\nmore of a pinch in some petroleum products.\nWe have done our best to see that Washington will give us, at the\nstate level, the flexibility to respond to emergency situations.\nWhen trucks are lined up waiting to be loaded with products for\nmarket, when jobs are jeopardized by any delay caused by fuel shortages\nor anything else, it is not a time for bureaucracy as usual.\nEven without a fuel allocation program, I know your industry\nroutinely faces a formidable array of government regulation.\nI think there's too much regulation now, too many forms to fill\nout, too many reports to file, too much government, period.\nIf a bureaucrat had been writing the 10 commandments, a simple\nrock slab would not have been near enough room.\nThose simple rules would have read: \"Thou Shalt Not, unless you\nfeel strongly to the contrary, or for the following stated exceptions,\nsee paragraphs 1-10 subsection a.\nIt is small comfort now to realize that the energy crisis has been\npredicted for years--even before the Middle East situation. The United\nStates, with six percent of the world's people, have been using about\n35 percent of total energy consumption. Now everyone points a finger\nat someone else and asks how come? Well, we just weren't listening.\n-1-\nAs other nations grew in affluence, their use of energy also grew.\nIn fact, the economists can chart a precise link between a nation's\nenergy consumption and the degree of economic prosperity it achieves\nfor its people.\nIn the years after World War II, our economy has grown tremendously\nWe have been providing more and more goods and services to more and more\npeople, paying higher wages to produce those goods and services. And\nour use of fuel and power has been a key element in making this\nprosperity possible.\nJust as the truck replaced the horse-drawn wagon, electricity and\nfuel powered machines and equipment have helped us greatly increase our\noutput at lower cost. The use of energy made mass production possible\nand mass production generated mass prosperity.\nTransportation uses about 25 percent of the total fuel energy we\nconsume each year. as the demand for fuel increased over the years,\nit began outstripping our discovery of new reserves and our production.\nThe same is true of the power shortage. We have been trying for\nthree years to get a realistic power plant siting program approved in\nthe Legislature. It has been a priority goal.\nBut some people have priorities that they rank higher.\nAdd the complicating factor of environmental requirements and\nyou have concocted a sure-fire recipe for delay. No one disputes the\nneed to preserve or protect the environment.\nThe concern expressed in recent years over environmental waste\nand blight has given us a healthy jolt of reality. It has reminded\nus that we cannot go on chewing up the earth, using recources wastefull\nand ignoring the environmental impact and the hazards of pollution of\nall kinds.\nNow we are being reminded that our supply of resources is not\nunlimited, either, that we must constantly be improving our technology,\nto take advantage of new sources of energy.\nSomehow a reasonable balance must be found between two desirable\ngoals: protecting the environment and assuring the country will have\nsufficient energy to maintain a healthy economy, that industry and\nbusiness will have enough fuel and power to operate, to provide the jobs\nour people need.\n-2-\nAmerica has traditionally been self-sufficient in almost\neverything we need. In fact, surpluses have been our problem--or so\nwe thought. But as the world began coming up to our level of living,\nand our own affluence increased we grew a little lazy and let demand\noutstrip production. And about that time we also began listening to\nvoices that said the magic of the market place--supply and demand\ncould be improved by a little government tinkering.\nYet a national magazine reports that there is more recoverable\noil located offshore within a day's driving distance of New York City\nthan there are proven reserves in the entire United States. And we\nhave the technology to recover it; we are already drilling offshore in\nthe Gulf of Mexico and our own coast.\nYet so far there is not a single well from Nova Scotia to Florida.\nAs in the Alaskan pipeline, the concerns of environmental interests\nplus the snail's pace of bureaucracy have combined to block development\nof these oil resources, resources that are located just off our own shore\nnot thousands of miles away in the Middle East.\nRecovering oil in Alaska or off our own shores would not mean\npaying out vast sums to foreign countries, aggravating our balance of\ntrade problem. Developing our own resources would help our own economy,\nit would mean jobs in cons truction, manufacturing, design and engineering.\nAnd the end result would be more fuel available to run our industries,\nyour trucks, to meet the fuel needs of our people.\nIn these two cases, it was not government action that has delayed\na solution. It has geen government inaction. It has been a lack of\ndetermination on the part of our entire society to come up with an\nanswer.\nThe real crisis we face is not an energy or fuel shortage. Those\nare problems within our power to solve.\nThe real energy crisis is a lack of decisive action, not next\nyear or two or thrre years down the line, but now.\nWe have some difficult choices to make.\nDo we want to go on being dependent on unstable supplies of\nforeign oil, at a price set not by a competitive market economy, but\nby the whims of those who use economic leverage to gain political ends?\nDo we want our industries to slow down, our economy to become\nlocked at a level of production that limits job opportunities and\nassures higher prices?\n-3-\nIs that really the way to fight inflation, to assure prosperity,\nto meet our short term oil needs?\nOr should we try to find a way to provide maximum protection for\nthe environment, without simply stopping development of the energy\nsources we must have?\nThe alternative is clear enough. We accept a slowdown in the\neconomy, periodic and possibly severe fuel and energy shortages,\nincreased unemployment, declining tax revenues to finance essential\nneeds, a shift from growing economic vitality to an economy marked by\nshortages, controls and regulation.\nOr we start solving the energy crisis, not just temporarily, but\npermanently.\nDuring World War II, when the freedom of the entire world depended\non our productive capacity, America built 1300 miles of pipeline in\nfour months, the famous Big Inch project.\nWhen Sputnik posed a new and potentially dangerous threat to our\nability to defend our freedom, we did not sit around and wring our hands,\nwe went to work and within a decade, put a man on the moon.\nIt took determination. It took money. And it required government,\nperforming its proper function which was to enlist the cooperation of\nthousands and thousands of different companies working within our\nfree enterprise economy.\nWe can solve our energy needs in the same way. And we can do it\nin ways compatible with our environmental goals.\nIf we have to, we can put up with temporary shortages and\nallocation programs. But let's make sure they are temporary. Never\nfor a single moment should we accept the idea of prolonged shortages,\nallocation programs, rationing or ruinous prices because America is\ntoo dependent on foreign sources for the fuel and power we need.\nBut we should not accept the pessimistic prophecies of those who\nsee the energy crisis as a permanent situation.\n######\n(Note: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes\nin, or additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand\nby the above quotes.)\n2/7\nhe\n-\n%\n-\n85\nto\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nClyde Walthall, Press Secretary\n16-445-4571\n2-7-74\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today sent the following message to the\nmembers of the California legislature:\nSTATE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS\nI made a commitment to you and to state employees and their\norganizations last year when I declined to sign employee benefit\nlegislation. It was that a balanced program of employee benefits would\nbe presented for your consideration early this year.\nI am now prepared to fulfill that pledge. But before I do, an\nexplanation of the process by which we arrived at this new benefits\napproach is in order. It is an approach that assures state employees and\ntheir families that for the first time the benefit portion of their\ncompensation will receive equal consideration with salaries.\nIn late 1972, at my urging, the state Personnel Board contracted\nwith the consulting firm of Cresap, McCormick and Paget to conduct an\nindependent study of the state's compensation policies and practices.\nTheir report was made public in May 1973. The board held hearings on it\nand in its annual report to you and me recommended adoption of many of\nthe CMP findings and recommendations.\nThe Personnel Board and I agreed that the state should adopt a\npolicy of considering prevailing practices in both salaries and benefits\nin setting employee compensation. We call the method total compensation.\nIn this process, salaries and benefits are surveyed separately for\ncomparability with prevailing practice and are adjusted separately.\nOur total compensation policy is based on sound objectives for a\ncomprehensive employee benefit program. These objectives include\nproviding for employee needs, supporting constructive personnel policies,\nproviding benefits equitably within homogeneous employee groups,\nproviding benefits economically from the viewpoint of the state and its\ncitizens, as employers, and administering the benefits efficiently.\nThe total compensation approach makes benefits as visible as\nsalaries both as a dollar income to employees and as a cost to the state.\nWhen we see that employer-paid benefits amount to 25 percent or more\nover and above salaries, benefits can no longer be regarded as \"fringes.\" \"\nThey are indeed part of the whole cloth of compensation. This helps\nmake us more aware of our joint responsibility to provide a fair and\nequitable benefits program. It also enables state employees to measure\nthe real value of benefits to them as part of their total compensation.\n- 1 -\nState Employee Benefits\nStarting with the Fall 1974 survey, we will survey benefits as well\nas salaries on a regular basis.\nAs for the package of enabling legislation which will be proposed\nto you this month, we will first meet and confer on these benefit\nproposals with interested employee organizations in keeping with my\nExecutive Order 71-3. We also will share with employee groups our\nconcepts for a longer range benefits program to be achieved as the\nannual total compensation surveys warrant and as funds allow. We are\ncompleting our studies of how best to administer a total compensation\nprogram. Organizationally it now involves several state agencies. There\nis a need for a clarification of responsibilities and coordination of\nroles which may require legislation.\nThe Personnel Board recommended and I have included in the 1974-75\nstate budget $45 million to improve state employees' benefits. The first-\nyear program which I will propose for alloting this money is focused on\nwhat state employees perceive as their highest priority need---increased\ntake-home pay. At the same time, it moves toward meeting our objective\nof a balanced benefits program overall.\nThe following seven subject areas came out of the study conducted\nby the total compensation project group and will be the basis for\ndiscussion under the meet-and-confer process:\n1. A basic policy statement adopting total compensation as the\nstate's method of determining employee compensation. We are convinced\nof the importance of giving equal and coordinated consideration to\nbenefits and salaries.\n2.\nIncreasing the state contribution to basic and major medical\ninsurance to 80 percent of the average cost for an employee and 50 percent\nof the cost for dependents. This proposal has the highest priority with\nmost employees and their organizations. The new formula will result in a\nsubstantial increase in take-home,pay. Employees still will have a stake\nin holding down premiums. This should encourage medical services\nsuppliers to remain competitive in their bidding for the state's\ninsurance contracts.\n3.\nReducing the retirement contributions of miscellaneous members,\nwho are also taxed for Social Security, from approximately 12 percent of\ngross salary to 10 percent. This 2 percent decrease in contributions\nwill net a 3 percent increase in take-home pay for most employees,\ndepending on their income tax bracket. Eighty-five percent of all\nmiscellaneous employees will be so benefitted.\nState employee benefits\n4. Providing one-half continuance of retirement allowance to\nsurvivors of miscellaneous members who are not covered by Social Security.\nTo assure this amount of continuing income to their survivors now\nmiscellaneous members must reduce their retirement allowances by up to\n30 percent. This improvement in the retirement allowance meets the\nsecond highest priority expressed by most employees.\n5. Establishing a fully-paid life insurance program to improve on\nthe present lump sum death benefit provided by the Public Employees'\nRetirement System. For lower salaried employees who are more likely to\nsubstitute this plan for existing insurance policies, this will be another\nform of increased take-home pay.\n6. Providing a one-time, catch-up adjustment in the allowance of\nemployees who retired prior to July 1, 1971 under the old 1/60th formula.\nThis amounts to a 15 percent increase, critically needed by these former\nworkers in this period of inflation. It will bring this group of\nannuitants up to the approximate allowance level of those who have more\nrecently retired under the new 1/50th formula.\n7. Eliminating election day as a state holiday and placing one\nholiday on a \"floating\" basis so it can be taken at the convenience of\nthe employee and employer. This will bring the state more into line with\nprevailing practice and will eliminate the inconvenience to our citizens\nof public offices being closed on statewide election days.\nBefore closing, I should mention plans for benefit improvements for\nemployees of both segments of higher education. Non-academic employees\nof the state University and Colleges system receive comparable salaries\nand will receive comparable benefits to those outlined above. A task\nforce has been formed to compare salaries of non-academic personnel at the\nUniversity with comparable personnel in civil service. If the salaries\nare equal, the benefits should also be equal and I will so recommend.\nWe are suggesting to the new Commission on Post Secondary Education\nthat a study be made of fringe benefits for faculty of both UC and CSUC\ncompared to those institutions which are considered similar. The results\nof this study should enable us to more fairly evaluate needs in these\nareas.\nI believe this proposed set of benefit improvements is the best\nchoice of plans which are feasible and fundable in the first year under a\ntotal compensation approach. Certainly, individual employees and special\ngroups will want to make their case for additional benefits. I am\nconfident, though, that through the deliberative process we can arrive at\na program of benefits which will provide the greatest good for the\ngreatest number of state employees in the long run.\n#####\nMcKelvey\n- 3 -\n2/11\n2\n//\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento California 95814\nClyde 1th 11, Press Secretary\n916-445°4571\n2-11-74\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nGREATER DALLAS CRIME COMMISSION\nFebruary 11, 1974\nAlthough we have been making some progress in slowing down the\ncrime rate in recent years, crime and violence remains the single\ngreatest concern of millions of our citizens.\nIt has cast a shadow of lawlessness across our land. Yet at the\nvery time when the challenge of crime in our society has been gorwing,\nthe task for those who must enforce the law has been made more difficult.\nThe attitude toward the drug problem is an example. In the past\ndecade, drug addiction has been the single greatest factor in the\nincrease of crime. Hundreds of thousands of our young people have\nbecome hooked by narcotics, lured into tragedy and a life of shame by\nthe Pied Pipers of the so-called drug culture.\nDrugs are not a fad or a phase to be compared to flagpole sitting\nor goldfish swallowing. The use of hard narcotics is largely responsible\nfor the great increase in burglaries, muggings and many of the\nirrational violent crimes we have known in recent years.\nDespite this undeniable truth, there are serious suggestions to\nease the drug laws, to \"decriminalize\" some offenses. The virus of\npermissiveness spreads its deadly poison. There are constant efforts\nto excuse, to explain and ultimately, I suppose, to accept widespread\ndrug addiction as inevitable.\nI reject this theory of inevitability. Our people are asked to\naccept pornography, to legalize prostitution. Some of the so-called\nexperts vehemently declare that violence on television is bad, but turn\naround and claim pornography has no impact whatsoever on our young people\nWe are asked to believe that the way to reduce crime is to make\nsome crimes legal. They also feel we should stop building prisons and\nshorten the sentences of those convicted of crimes against law-abiding\ncitizens.\nNot too long ago, a national commission on the causes of violence,\ncast society as the chief villain, not those who committed the acts\nof violence.\nLogic is stretched to the breaking point.\nCourt rulings involving technical points of law have gone far\nbeyond any degree of reasonable interpretation.\n- 1 -\nDallas Crime Commission\nAll these things have occurred and the combined impact has one\nresult that cannot be ignored: in too many cases, the permissive\nphilosophy has allowed guilty offenders to go free, to continue to prey\non the innocent citizens who look to our legal system for protection.\nThe problem of crime is not an abstraction to be debated in some\nacademic tearoom. It is a daily threat to the lives and safety of\nour people.\nThe dollar cost alone exceeds $16 billion a year. And no one can\nput a price tag on the tragedy that lawlessness costs the victims.\nBut the rights of the victims and the society they live in are too\noften forgotten.\nNothing could be farther from the truth. Of course, we are\nconcerned with protecting the rights of the accused. This is the\ncornerstone of our legal system and I hope it always will be. Yet\nassuring the rights of the accused must never become an excuse for\nignoring the rights of society.\nI hope you will not mind my referring to California, but one of\nour major priorities is to eliminate the barriers to effective law\nenforcement and by doing so, fulfill government's obligation to the\ncitizens.\nWe had a task force at work on this problem for a year or more.\nThis Select Committee on Law Enforcement Problems has recommended ways\nto streamline our criminal justice system. Some of their recommendations\nwill require legislation, some we will do administratively. We want\nstronger laws against drug pushing. We want our judicial system to\nadopt a policy that every criminal who uses a deadly weapon in the\ncommission of a crime shall automatically go to prison.\nThere have been too many variations in sentences imposed for the\nsame serious crimes.\nTo help relieve court congestion, we are asking for the adoption of\nthe six-man jury for lesser offenses, an innovation that has proven\nsuccessful in states where it has been tried. We want to classify some\nminor traffic offenses as infractions to further ease the workload of\nour courts.\nTo be effective, the law must be clear. It is the job of the\ncourts to make it clear.\nMore than a century ago, De Tocqueville said: \"To suppose that a\nstate can subsist, when its fundamental laws may be subjected to four-\nand-twenty interpretations at the same time, is to advance a proposition\ncontrary to reason and to experience.\"\n- 2 -\nDallas Crime Commission\nThe people are strongly in favor of efforts to restore reason and\ncommon sense in the criminal justice system. In fact, they have been\nfar ahead of the courts in demanding that the scales of justice be\nbrought into a better balance.\nThe search for truth in the courtroom is not a game of legal chess,\nwith the rights of society cast as an unwilling pawn.\nPerhaps more than anything else, we need a change in attitude,\nfrom permissiveness to realism.\nEvery day, hundreds and thousands of cars are subjected to a search\nat our borders in a massive effort to stem the tide of narcotics and\nother contraband. Most of those cars are driven by law-abiding tourists,\nout for a holiday. We have had customs checks for contraband for 200\nyears and I cannot recall any great outcry that this is an unreasonable\ninvasion of individual rights, especially when the officers are looking\nfor hard narcotics.\nBut how do those law-abiding citizens feel when they learn that a\npoliceman, who stops a car for speeding and then finds a package of\nheroin, cannot introduce that as evidence because that was not why he\nstopped the car?\nIs a legal technicality that forces the court to ignore the\nexistence of a crime a logical or valid extension of constitutional\nrights?\nAsk any parent of a youngster who freaked out or perhaps died from\nan overdose of drugs. I doubt that they would agree that it is.\nThe truth is: if we are really determined to curb the drug traffic\nand eliminate crime of all types, we must remove all unreasonable\nobstacles to effective law enforcement.\nThat is the intent of the reforms we have proposed in California.\nAnd I know that is the thrust of your own efforts.\nYet the courts and law enforcement can only do so much. Assuring\na lawful society is an individual responsibility, one that must be\naccepted by every individual in our society.\nThis, too, is a matter of attitude, the way we live our lives, the\nexample we set for youngsters.\nIf each of us lives up to our own responsibilities, individually\nand in our professional capacity, we can foster a greater respect for\nthe law, for the principles of truth and justice.\n- 3 -\nDallas Crime Commission\nIt may be old-fashioned to some, but nothing sums up this personal\ncommitment more than the simple word: \"Honor.\" When Thomas Jefferson\nwas advising his nephew what path he should follow to achieve success,\nhe told him that men must always pursue their own and their country's\ninterests with the \"purest integrity, the most chaste honor.\n\"Make these your first object, Jefferson said. \"Give up money,\ngive up fame, give up the earth itself and all it contains rather than\ndo an immoral act. And never suppose, that in any possible situation\nor under any circumstances, it is best to do a dishonorable thing,\nhowever slightly so it may appear to you.\n#######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes. there may be changes in,\nor additions to the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes).\n- 4 -\n4/19\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: NOON FRIDAY\nSacramento, California 95814\nAPRIL 19, 1974\nClyde Walthall, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n4-18-74\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nExcerpts of Remarks by Governor Ronald Reagan\nBetter Business Bureau of Santa Clara Valley Luncheon\nSan Jose, California\nApril 19, 1974\nThe purpose of your organization is to police business and assure\nhonest practices and integrity in the market place. Your goal, to\nguarantee fairness to the consumer and fairness to the producers who\nprovide the goods and services consumers need and want, is an important\nfunction. As businessmen, you deserve full credit for all you do in\nthis regard.\nI went to Sacramento seven years ago with similar goals: to\nassure that government is fair to the people, to the taxpayers as well\nas to those who rely on government for essential services.\nAt the time, I was a citizen making his first foray into that\nmysterious arena called politics. I can state unequivocally that\nlongevity in office does not automatically turn an amateur into a\nprofessional. I have tried, and the people we brought into government\nhave tried, to maintain a non-political approach to the problems of\ngovernment.\nWe have an unofficial watchword frequently voiced that sums up\nthis attitude. \"When we start thinking of government as 'we' instead\nof 'they', we have been here too long.\"\nNow as you well know I won't be in Sacramento too much longer,\nand I am not a candidate for statewide office. And that has its\nadvantages with regard to the subject I would like to discuss with you.\nUsually, when I visit with an audience of businessmen, I have\ndiscussed the ways in which government imposes unreasonable burdens on\nour free market economy. I have been known to expound on this subject\nat length and no doubt many of you have heard me perhaps many times.\nBut please don't bolt for the door yet. I have a different subject\nin mind!\nCampaign and election law reforms. It is a most urgent problem\nnot only in California but throughout the country.\nWatergate and other events have caused America to take a searching\nlook at this entire subject. And I believe the outcome can be beneficial\nif we apply the lessons we have learned to the laws that govern\ncampaigns and elections.\n-1-\nBetter Business Bureau\nPage 2\nIn my State of the State message to the legislature this year,\nI proposed a series of campaign and election law reforms. Today I would\nlike to recall what they were and the reasons we suggested them. And,\nI would also like to outline here, for the first time, some additional\nreforms we feel are necessary to re-establish and maintain the public's\nconfidence in government and in the state laws that safeguard the process\nby which the people choose their elected officials.\nI believe the reforms we outlined in January, and the additional\nsteps we are now proposing are essential:\nTo guarantee fairness to all candidates, of all parties;\nTo guarantee public disclosure of campaign contributions and candidate\nfinancial reports;\n--To reduce campaign costs; and\nTo protect the integrity of the entire election process.\nNon-Partisan Secretary of State\n1. First, we proposed that the legislature submit to the people\na Constitutional Amendment making the office of Secretary of State\nnon-partisan; that this public official be selected on the same basis\nwe now elect the non-partisan State Superintendent of Public Instruction.\nThat is why the University of California's Board of Regents is\nConstitutionally independent from the Executive or Legislative branches\nof government.\nThe Secretary of State has traditionally been, in effect, the\nchief elections official in California. It has been the responsibility\nof the person holding this office to:\nAccept and certify for the ballot all the initiatives, bond issues\nand other propositions submitted for a vote of the people, either by\nthe legislature or by the people themselves through the initiative\nprocess.\nThe Secretary of State is required, by law, to issue the voter\npamphlets which contain in impartial analysis of these ballot measures\nand the arguments for and against each measure.\nHe handles the details of officially reporting campaign\ncontributions and enforcing conflict-of-interest disclosure laws, to see\nthat all provisions of the regulations are carried out.\nFinally, it is the Secretary of State who tabulates the actual\nvote count and certifies the election of successful candidates for\npublic office.\nBetter Business Bureau\nPage 3\nIn recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the\npotential for campaign abuses in the laws we used to have to police our\nelections. Those laws have now been strengthened.\nA series of measures provide more detailed reporting of campaign\ncontributions, to make public just who gave how much to which candidates.\nTo safeguard potential conflicts-of-interest, all candidates\nfor public office and incumbents are now required to list their financial\ninterests and all their sources of income above a nominal amount in any\ngiven year.\nWhen I suggested the Secretary of State would be a non-partisan\noffice, there were some who thought I was being facetious and playing\npolitics--1 was dead serious.\nThe Secretary of State has the responsibility of enforcing the\nelection laws.\nHis duties in this area have increased enormously in recent years\nand, as I told the legislature, with a wider use of computers, the\nSecretary of State has been delegated a growing responsibility in the\nactual operational details of conducting elections.\nIn effect, as far as campaign reporting and election laws are\nconcerned, the Secretary of State is the referee, the field judge and\nthe score-keeper all rolled up in one.\nIn football, it would not be fair to have the referee competing\nwith\nhimself and calling penalties against his opponents. And I don't see\nhow anyone can regard this as a fair campaign practice in politics,\neither.\nI do not believe it is possible for a partisan Secretary of\nState, elected on a partisan basis, to carry out this broad range of\nelection law responsibilities without someone raising the possibility\nof personal or partisan conflict-of-interest.\nEvents since then have clearly demonstrated the need for a non-\npartisan Secretary of State. As you know, the present incumbent in this\noffice is a candidate for another position. And some of his rival\ncandidates in his own party have raised the very points about which I\nexpressed a strong concern last January.\nIt is not enough that the person holding this office be free of\npartisan or personal bias. Even the possibility of bias must be\neliminated.\nOur proposal was not aimed at any individual or potential candidate\nBetter Business Bureau\nPage 4\nIt is part of an eight-point program of campaign reforms being\nsubmitted to the legislature for adoption this year.\nIn addition to a non-partisan Secretary of State, we propose:\nFair Campaign Practices Advisory Committee\n2. A law creating an Advisory Committee on Fair Campaign\nPractices, an independent commission consisting of 12 members, 11 to\nbe appointed by the non-partisan Secretary of State, who will serve as\nchairman. The members would include three citizens at large, three\nretired members of the judiciary, three members who shall be either\nnon-partisan county clerks or county voting registrars and one\nrepresentative each of the two major political parties recognized by\nlaw in California.\nThis commission would have the responsibility of drafting\nrecommendations for any legislation the commission believes necessary\nto upgrade campaign practices in California or to correct any situation\nrequiring reform.\nIf our form of government is to serve the best interest of the\npeople, the people must be assured that California's campaign and\nelection laws are constantly monitored and strengthened where necessary,\nand enforced without favor or partisan bias.\nProhibit Labor or Corporate Campaign Contributions\n3. Many people in and out of public office and in the media\nhave found a great deal lacking in our current system of financing\npolitical campaigns. One area of real and potential abuse, documented\nmany times, involves the large political contributions of business and\nbusiness groups; labor unions and labor organizations; public employees\nassociations and other groups which may have a direct interest in\ngovernment and the laws and regulations enacted and enforced by\ngovernment.\nThere is no doubt that abuses can and have occurred. There also\nis no doubt that the greatest potential for abuse is in the massive\ncollective financial contributions of special interest groups. It is\nfrom these sources that come the large and often criticized \"political\ncampaign war chests\" about which we have heard so much.\nWe can eliminate this type of abuse without denying the individual\ncitizen the opportunity and the right to financially support the political\nphilosophy that he or she feels will best serve their own interest and\nthe best interest of the State and nation.\nBetter Business Bureau\nPage 5\nBut I also believe the decision to make or not make a political\ncampaign contribution should be made voluntarily, by the individual.\nSo, we propose that:\nOnly individual political campaign donations, voluntarily\ncontributed by individuals, be legally recognized or permitted in any\nstate or local election in California.\nFurther, we propose that California prohibit, by state law, any\ncorporate, labor organization or public employee organization from\ndirectly or indirectly soliciting, receiving or making political campaign\ncontributions to support or oppose any candidate for public office (or\nto support or oppose any ballot measure).\nTo guarantee there will be no loopholes, this law would also\nprohibit corporations, labor unions or public employee associations from\nestablishing or maintaining any committee, or other organization or\nassociation for the purpose of making political contributions or other-\nwise supporting or opposing candidates for public office or seeking the\npassage or defeat of any ballot measure.\nBan On-The-Job-Political Activity by Public Employees\n4. Government itself is not without fault in the area of campaign\nabuse. There is a massive potential for campaign abuse when public\nemployees or tax-supported facilities are used on behalf or against\npolitical candidates or causes. That is why the State and Federal\ngovernments adopted the civil service system, to assure that government\nemployment would be free of the political \"spoils system.\" That was the\npurpose of the Federal Hatch Act and similar state laws-to make it\nclear that it is illegal for public employees to engage in improper\npolitical activities or to misuse public funds or resources to support\nor oppose any political cause or candidate.\nYet still we hear allegations, at almost every election, that\ngovernment employees are engaged in improper political activity.\nTo eliminate the potential for such abuses, we propose that\nCalifornia's state laws be strengthened to specifically prohibit any\nemployee or appointive officer of the State, the Legislature, any city\nor county, special district or school district, from participating in\npolitical activities of any kind during working hours.\nLet me make it clear: This does not mean any abridgement of the\npublic employee's right to participate in political affairs, to vote,\nto support or oppose the candidate or cause of his or her choice. This\nis a basic Constitutional right and public employees, like other citizens,\nare and should be able to freely participate in those political activities\nsanctioned by law--but on their own time, not during working hours.\nBetter Business Bureau\nPage 6\nUnder this law, it will also be specifically against the law for\nany public employee or appointive officer to use or make available any\npublicly-owned equipment or other resources to support or oppose any\ncandidate for public office or to seek the passage or defeat of any\nballot measure.\nProhibit Campaign Contributions by Judges\n5. Obviously, it is essential that the public know that public\nfunds or resources are not being used for political purposes. It is even\nmore essential that the public be assured that the judiciary, the judges\nwho enforce our laws, are themselves models of ethical self-restraint\nin the political arena.\nThe judiciary is the arm of government which has the power to\narbitrate and determine the legality and Constitutionality of actions\nby the Executive and Legislative branches.\nJudges who are given this awesome power cannot be expected to\nexercise it impartially if they themselves are engaged in partisan\npolitical activity.\nThis is such a basic and fundamental observation that it really\nshould not be necessary to make the point. Yet a recent example of this\ntype of improper activity has demonstrated the need for spelling this\nout in law. The legal profession and the judiciary itself, through\nexisting and proposed canons of ethics, have recognized this. These\ncanons of ethics rule out any direct or indirect political campaign\ndonations by judges.\nThese ethical guidelines should be part of our state law. So as\nanother part of our campaign reform program, we propose:\n--A law to prohibit judges from making political campaign contributions,\ndirectly or indirectly; or accepting or receiving contributions; or\nacting as an agent or the intermediary in the making of political\ncampaign contributions. The only exception would be those contributions.\nreceived or contributed by judges in support of their own campaigns\nfor elections.\nSimplified Ballot Analysis\n6. If you have had trouble fathoming the real meaning of some\ncomplicated ballot proposals, you will appreciate the intent of the\nnext reform we propose. As you know, in the past, we have had ballot\nmeasures where a \"yes\" really means \"no\" and vice versa. And we have\nhad other proposed Constitutional and legal changes that were so complex\nthat they would baffle Solomon himself. Existing law requires the\nLegislative Counsel to prepare an impartial analysis of each statewide\nballot measure in clear, easy-to-understand language.\nBetter Business Bureau\nPage 7\nTo help assure this, we propose that the Legislative Counsel be\nrequired to confer with reading experts appointed by the State Superin-\ntendent of Public Instruction. The purpose of this is to assure that\nall ballot propositions are written and explained to the voters in\nlanguage an average voter can understand.\nProhibit Campaign Donations by Lobbyists\n7. We have heard this year, and in years past, a great deal about\nthe influence of lobbyists in Sacramento. Because of a scandal some\nyears ago, the State adopted laws to regulate the activities of\nlegislative advocates, to require tnd make public their campaign\ndonations and other expenses, for entertaining and otherwise presenting\nthe case of their clients to legislators and other public officials.\nI strongly support these regulations and laws.\nYet some regard even the legitimate activites of lobbyists as a\nmassive evil which threatens the very fabric of government. And in their\nzeal, there are those who would simply eliminate legislative advocates\nor so drastically restrict their ability to function that they would\nlose any effectiveness they have in representing the various interests\nof the groups which employ them.\nSome of these vocal critics imply that lobbying is a giant\nconsortium of big business or other special interests, with evil\npurposes in mind. It is true that business does employ advocates to\npresent their argument for or against legislation which they feel would\nbe beneficial or harmful to their interests.\nSo do labor unions, and public employee groups, cities and\ncounties, church groups, legal aid societies, and such organizations as\nthe League of Women Voters, the American Civil Liberties Union, and even\na sorority or two. All these groups have registered legislative advocates\nand these advocates perform a legitimate function in our system of\ngovernment.\nOur State and Federal Constitutions assure every citizen or\ngroup of citizens the right to petition government for a redress of\ntheir grievances, to support or oppose new laws they regard as helpful\nor harmful to their interest or the interest of the groups they represent.\nIn our efforts to reform campaign practices, we cannot deny these\nConstitutional rights.\nBut there are steps we can take to eliminate abuses and to correct\nweaknesses in the existing laws that control and regulate the activities\nof legislative advocates.\nBetter Business Bureau\nPage 8\nOne such weakness is the fact that the legislature itself\nadministers the existing law requiring lobbyists to register and\nperiodically make public a list of their expenses.\nIt is not unreasonable to question the effectiveness of having\nlegislators who are entertained by lobbyists policing the law designed\nto regulate the activities of their hosts.\nSo we propose a new and greatly strengthened law in this area.\nIt would:\nRequire that lobbyists register with the non-partisan Secretary of\nState; and that the Secretary of State be given the responsibility\nfor administering all regulations and laws covering the activities\nof lobbyists.\nThis law would also require:\nFull and detailed financial disclosure of all entertainment and other\nexpenses incurred by legislative advocates. These monthly reports\nwould include the full amounts of each expenditure for entertainment\nor whatever, list the purpose and the name of the beneficiary.\nThe public is entitled to know just who was entertained, by\nwhich lobbyist, how much was spent and why.\nFinally, the stronger law we propose would prohibit any lobbyist\nfrom directly or indirectly making any political contribution to any\ncandidate for any state or local office or to support or oppose any\nballot measure.\nThis, we feel, will eliminate possibly the greatest criticism\ninvolving the activities of legislative advocates- by eliminating direct\ncash campaign contributions to legislators or other office holders who\nmust decide issues that directly affect the interests of the legislative\nadvocates or their clients.\nShorter Campaign Period\n8. The last point in our campaign reform program involves\nsomething that many people have rightfully blamed for many campaign\nabuses\nthat is simply the tremendous cost of campaigning for elective\noffice.\nWith growth of our population, the advent of television, and\nsimply the inflation that has increased the cost of everything else,\nthe cost of reaching every voter has become a tremendous factor in\nelections at every level of government.\nAs usual, when a new problem arises, there are those who would\nimmediately turn to government for an answer, by having government use\nBetter Business Bureau\nPage 9\nI reject the idea of public financing of political campaigns.\nI do not regard this as a proper expenditure of government. There is\ntoo much potential in public financing for massive campaign abuses\nranging from an unreasonable advantage for incumbents to the coercion\ninvolved in government taking an individual's tax money and giving it\nto a candidate the individual actually opposes. For 200 years, part of\nthe very process of seeking and gaining elective office has been\nattracting a broad base of support to finance a successful campaign.\nJust as our people voluntarily support their churches and\ncharities of all kinds, they have traditionally supported the political\ncandidates or causes they favor with their dollars WS well as their votes\nAs we know from recent events, the system is not perfect and it\ndoes involve a potential for abuse. So let's correct the abuses.\nWe should tighten the laws. But we should not increase taxes\nto solve the problem of political campaign abuse. And that is what publi\nfinancing really means.\nThere is another step we can take that would greatly reduce\nthe cost of political campaigns for every candidate without increasing\nthe tax burden of the people!\nShorten the length of political campaigns.\nI suggested this three years ago---and still regard it as the\nsingle most effective way to reduce campaign expenses. Our election\nperiod runs far too long now, and every week or month the political\nseason drags on, the cost of campaigns goes up and up.\nNo other major country in the world has a longer political\nseason than we do. In Britain, when a general election is called, the\nelection date is set, the campaigns are run and the votes are counted,\nall within a period of three weeks.\nNo, I am not proposing that we adopt the British system.\nBut, we can eliminate a great deal of the costs of campaigning\nand thus eliminate a great deal of the potential for campaign abuses.\nWhile we have a larger country and a different political system,\nI have yet to see any reasonable argument that convinces me we should\nhave a campaign that officallly lasts almost 6 months and unofficially\ndrags on for years.\nSo as the final point in our effort to reform campaign practices,\nwe propose a law to:\nSet the date of California primary election on the first Tuesday in\nSeptember rather than the first Tuesday in June of election years.\nBetter Business Bureau\nPage 10\nThis would provide an official general election campaign period\nof roughly seven weeks. That is more than enough time for the candidates\nto present their cases to the people. But it is brief enough to have\na practical impact of sharply reducing the cost of conducting political\ncampaigns.\nI realize we have the problem of the presidential primary and\nnominating conventions every four years. My answer to that is that the\nnational elections can be adjusted to fit within California's official\npolitical season.\nWe have led the way in welfare and many other reforms which have\nbeen adopted nationally. And the truth is: The national campaigns also\nare too long.\nIS the national elections must be adjusted to conform to California\nofficial campaign period, so be it.\nOur state can become a model for ffective political reform,\ntoo; just as we have led the way to reform in so many other areas of\npublic concern.\nThis is a strong and sweeping package of political reforms. Some\nof the steps represent drastic changes and far stronger means of guarding\nagainst improper campaign practices. Some may be controversial. There\nwill be many who having prospered politically under existing laws\nwill vigorously oppose substantial changes in our campaign laws.\nWell, I believe we must have changes. We must adopt realistic\nreforms that will encourage more private citizens to seek public office,\nand I believe we can best achieve this by tightening the rules to assure\neveryone a Zair chance to participate, without facing the unreasonable\nbarriers of high campaign costs and the possibility of massive illicitly\nobtained campaign funds being spent by an entrenched opposition.\nWe need campaign reforms because (aside from inflation), the\npresent widespread lack of confidence in government and in the election\nprocess is America's most compelling problem. This cynicism is a cancer,\nan ugly growth eroding the public's belief in the honesty and integrity\nof our very form of government. Surgery is required.\nGovernment must have the confidence of the people if it is to be\neffective. To gain that confidence, government must earn it. I believe\nthe best, perhaps the only way to restore the public's confidence in\ngovernment, is to act on the campaign reforms I have outlined here\ntoday.\nIS I have learned one thing in these several years, it is that\ngovenrment by the people works if the people work at it.\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in\nthe\nTHE\n6500\n65\nto\nand\n4/19\n4\n19\nSacramento, California 95814\nAPRIL 20, 1974\nClyde Walthall, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n4-19-74\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nREPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE\nSAN JOSE\nApril 19, 1974\nThis is more than just another meeting for those of us who believe\nthat ours is a government of, by and for the people instead of the\nother way around. Somehow, I cannot escape a feeling of nostalgia.\nSo many of you were involved in that great beginning eight years ago\nBut there is one special person who is not with us today. And I would\nlike to take just a moment to pay tribute to a great lady who is retiring\nfrom public life this year---Ivy Baker Priest, our state treasurer.\nShe has worked long and hard for the things we all believe in, for\nthe cause that brings us together here tonight.\nFor eight years under Dwight Eisenhower, Ivy was Treasurer for the\nUnited States and she has served eight years as California's state\ntreasurer.\nWith Ivy running our investment program, the state has earned more\nthan $700 million in interest. That is enough to fundher office for\n700 years. She has fought for fiscal stability and economy in government\nbecause like all of us, she knows that government can best serve the\npeople by letting them keep a little more of their own money.\nThere are so many things I could say about her fine work, her\ndedication and her great service to the people of California and this\ncountry. But I would like to point out one thing that some of you may\nnot know: while Ivy was in Washington, she had the distinction of\nsigning more than 62 billion dollars of U.S. currency. And one of the\nthings I know she is proudest of is the fact that those dollars were\nworth a lot more in purchasing power because for at least a brief period,\nAmerica had a Republican Congress that did not spend money faster than\nthe treasury could issue it.\nWe are not saying good-bye to Ivy. We will still look to her for\ninspiration and guidance. But I know all of you join me in wishing her\nmany long and happy years of retirement. And the greatest thing we can\ndo to show her our appreciation is to elect a Republican to take her\nplace in Sacramento next January.\nIvy was with us when we embarked on a crusade for better government\nin California. And there was one striking similarity between that time\nand now. Only two years before, we had suffered a setback nationally\nthat depleted our ranks in Congress and the legislative halls across the\ncountry.\n- 1 -\nRSCC\nThe pundits and the pollsters were having a field day. Our\nopponents were gleefully predicting the demise of our party, the end of\nthe fight for common sense government.\nwell, a funny thing happened on the way to the funeral. In 1966,\nCalifornia led one of the greatest political comebacks our party has\nexperienced in the 20th century. We took all six of the partisan\nconstitutional offices. Across the country, we won back 47 seats in\nCongress, eight governorships, four seats in the U.S. Senate and 503\nnew seats in the various state legislatures.\nAnd two years later, a Republican administration went to Washington.\nNow, our opponents are again forecasting a gloomy time ahead. They\nare hoping that something called Watergate will drown out any real\ndiscussions of the issues. They do not want a dialogue or a debate about\ntheir long and sorry record of failure to deal with America's problems.\nThe only way they will get away with it is if we let them.\nWe have a great group of candidates to choose from in our own\nprimary election. We are going to have a spirited campaign, a thorough\ndiscussion of issues. And I hope that when it is over, we will stand\ntogether as we were united in 1966 when we won a victory that brought\ncommon sense government back to Sacramento.\nMany of the candidates in our primary were part of that team. They\nhelped build a great record. And we must help our team carry on that\nrecord in November.\nEight years ago, California was on the brink of insolvency. The\nstate was spending more than a million dollars a day more than it was\ntaking in; property taxes had grown to an intolerable level and homeowners\nwere demanding relief.\nThe crime rate kept going up and every attempt to tighten our laws,\nto crack down on the criminals, wound up in a legislative graveyard\nbecause our opponents controlled the key committees.\nThey had an almost total domination of the executive, judicial and\nlegislative branches for eight years.\nAnd on almost every major problem, things were worse off than when\nthey took office. They did not solve problems; they subsidized them and\nby doing so, they compounded the high tax burden of our people, and left\nunsolved an array of unfinished tasks and unmet challenges.\n- 2 -\nOur job this year is to go to the people and show them the record.\nThe facts demonstrate what can be achieved when we work together, when\nwe seek reasonable, responsible solutions. I know you have heard me\nhafors.\nD...\nWD\nDIC\nserve the people of California, we must make sure that every voter knows\njust how different things could have been if another philosophy had been\nin power in Sacramento.\nInstead of having a million-dollar-a-day deficit, this year we\nreturned an $850 million surplus to the people---the third such tax\nrebate we have been able to make.\nBy the end of the budget year commencing this July, tax relief will\ntotal more than $5.7 million these past eight years. For the first time\nin modern history an incoming Governor of California will inherit a\nbalanced budget.\nThe homeowner exemption has been more than doubled; there has been\na special program of property tax relief for senior citizens, income tax\ncredits to provide renter tax relief; we have cut the inventory tax in\nhalf.\nSchool tax rates have been rolled back in many districts, and state\nassistance for public schools has gone up 105 percent compared to an\nenrollment growth of less than 6 percent.\nThe welfare caseload is no longer growing by 40,000 a month.\nInstead, there are almost 400,000 fewer people on welfare than when we\ninstituted our comprehensive reforms in 1971. Those reforms have become\na model for the nation.\nThey have provided higher benefits to those who really need and\ndeserve help. At the same time, they have saved the taxpayer more than\na billion dollars.\nAnd they restored a long missing ingredient of integrity to the\npublic assistance program, through the adoption of a work requirement\nfor able-bodied recipients, and realistic regulations designed to\neliminate fraud and abuse.\nAll the otherreforms you have heard me speak about so often also\nwere designed for the benefit of the people of California, to provide\nbetter service, to eliminate waste and duplication, to reduce the tax\nburden whenever and wherever possible, to cut and squeeze and trim so\nthat we might provide additional money for schools, for mental health,\nfor fighting crime, for all of government's legitimate services to the\npeople.\n- 3 -\nRSCC\nI wish I could say that logic captivated our opponents, that when\nthe sublime light of truth was focused on the great unsolved problems we\nfaced, they recognized the error of their ways and were won over to\nrealistic solutions, You could say that, but that is not exactly the\nway it happened.\nThe truth is: they stalled and scrambled and fought against almost\nevery major reform we made. And the only reason we were able to make\nmajor reforms is because when the chips were down, we took our case to\nthe people and found that government by the people works when the people\nwork at it. At the same time, Republicans in the legislative and\nexecutive branch stood together.\nOur opponents had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the\nrealization that the people wanted welfare reform, homeowners needed and\nwere demanding property tax relief, people were sick and tired of paying\nhigher and higher taxes to support a growing government bureaucracy.\nAnd they were fed up with politicians who say one thing before an\nelection and then do something entirely different after the votes are\nsafely counted.\nThat is an issue in this campaign, too---the public records of those\nwho are running for elective office. What did they do when they had a\nchance to solve a problem, to meet a challenge, to fulfill the\nresponsibility that elected officials have to the people?\nOn that score, the weight of evidence is entirely on our side.\nFor a number of years, there was a court imposed moratorium on\ncapital punishment. This moratorium was imposed despite the fact that\nthe legislature itself had 35 times in the past 40 years refused to\nrepeal capital punishment.\nBut those who rob and kill and maim did not declare a moratorium\nagainst violent crimes. And when the courts issued a mandate totally\noutlawing capital punishment, the people acted when the legislature\nrefused to act.\nThey gathered a million signatures and the people voted 2 to 1 to\nmake California one of more than 20 states which have restored capital\npunishment.\nDespite this clear mandate, a number of our opponents, including\nthose who now serik the highest office in the state, would still have\nthwarted the will of the people, and the will of the majority in the\nlegislature.\n- 4 -\nYou have heard me often in the past plead with you and with the\npeople of California to elect responsible legislators, who are willing\nto listen to the people and respond to their needs and desires.\nCalifornia needs more Republicans in the legislature. because that\nis the only way the people will ever get any action.\nWhatever they say on the campaign trail, when they get to\nSacramento a majority of our opponents become captive of a philosophy.\nand a leadership that has displayed utter contempt for the needs and\ndesires of a majority of our people.\nTime after time, constructive action to fight crime has been\nblocked in the legislature.\nEvery day and night, our police must spend hundreds of thousands of\nman hours every year trying to control the crime caused by drug addiction\nGovernments at every level are financing massive drug rehabilitation\nprograms. These programs represent society's desperate efforts to\nsalvage young addicts from a life of despair and addiction.\nWe suppose these efforts to free young people from a dependence on\ndrugs. In fact, we have sponsored many of them. But shouldn't our\nsociety be treating the cause and not the symptoms? Shouldn't we\nconcentrate every power at our command to wipe out the drug traffic\nentirely?\nIf we succeed in that, then perhaps we can spend some of what we\nwould save for cancer research, for finding cures for birth defects,\nfor programs that benefit all our people.\nThis year, we asked for a law to require mandatory minimum prison\nsentences for drug pushers and for anyone convicted of using a gun while\ncommitting a crime. It was a Republican program. And a Republican\nSenator sponsored that law.\nBut four Democrats in the Assembly Criminal Procedure Committee\nkilled this law on a straight party vote.\nIn the name of compassion, our opponents would continue to permit\ncourts to grant probation and parole to convicted drug peddlers. Yet\nthose who profit off the drug traffic show no compassion for the\nthousands of tragic victims of drug abuse, young people who become\nhooked on heroin.\nThere is no parole or probation for the teenager suffering the\nagonies of drug wichdrawl. Our opponents would ignore the enormity of\nthese crimes against society.\n- 5 -\nHere was an opportunity to do something about drug abuse, but a\nlaw designed to keep drug pushers off the street and in prison where they\nbelong was blocked by four Democrats. And everyone was appointed to that\ncommittee\nby\na\nis\nhim veto power over any effective crime laws we might pass!\nThese are the issues which we must bring to the attention of the\npeople. They should know which party favors effective law enforcement\nand they should also know which candidates and which party has blocked\nrealistic attempts to crack down on crime.\nWe are a minority party. But we were a minority party in 1966 and\nif we had not attracted the support of millions of fine Democrats and\nIndependents, none of us would be here today. We must not be discouraged\nor divided by party registration totals, because when it comes to the\ngreat challenges of our time, the people are with us. They share our\nphilosophy.\nWhen you take the issues, one by one, you will find the people\nsupport the realistic solutions that our philosophy and our party offers\nthem.\nIt was not our philosophy that introduced the concept of planned\ninflation in America. Our opponents did that. And the plan calls for\nmore deficits, bigger debts and a higher tax burden.\nIt was not Republican philosophy to deliberately limit food supplies\nby controlling production, thus assuring higher food prices. That was\nthe philosophy of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society.\nFor more than a generation, there has been a sort of see-saw system\nat work in America. Our opponents get elected to office and foul things\nup so badly that the voters finally turn to Republican leadership to\nbring common sense back into government. Well, let us change that this\nyear. Let us have a Republican victory and our opponents will not have a\nchance to undo the reforms we have accomplished.\nLook, if you will, at the greatest problems of recent times. The\nVietnam war dragged on for almost 10 years, but it took a Republican\nadministration to restore peace without surrender. We have heard calls\nfor a volunteer army. But we did not get a volunteer army until a\nRepublican administration made it possible.\nWe believe the best way to assure prosperity is to generate more\njobs. They believe in more welfare.\nWe believe government should be more efficient. They believe in\nmore government, period.\n- 6 -\nRSCC\nWe believe our people are paying too much of their income in taxes\nnow and that government should do everything it can to reduce that\nintolerable burden. Our opponents advocate solutions that will mean\nhigher taxes and more and more big brother control over the lives of\nour people.\nWe must expose their false charges, including the myth that ours is\nthe party of the rich, supported and financed only by special interest\ngroups.\nThe truth is exactly opposite. Even Common Cause, when it counted\nup the campaign donations for 1972, found that so-called special interest\ngroups donated twice as much to Democratic congressional candidates as\nRepublican candidates received.\nLabor and other special interest groups gave $5.7 million to\nDemocratic candidates, but the Republican candidates received only $2.6\nmillion.\nWe have heard a lot about the campaign spending in 1972. We are\nall well aware of the fact that Republican candidates, from president\ndown to the last local office, spent $20 million on TV and Radio. It is\na little harder to find out that Democrats spent $34 million. These\nfigures are in the official Federal Communications Commission report.\nBut our opponents are not interested in facts.\nA great deal of their campaign funds came not from small donations,\nbut from large contributions totaling thousands and thousands of dollars.\nWhy is it that a rich Republican is always a \"fat cat.\" But a rich\nDemocrat is a philanthropist.\nOur opponents speak piously of campaign reform, but the solution\nthey favor most is in keeping with their philosophy of more government.\nThey would set up a new bureaucracy to take the money now being given\nvoluntarily by using the coercion of taxation and the taxpayer would pay\nwith no say as to who received his contribution.\nI reject the idea of using the taxpayer's dollar to finance\npolitical campaigns. I do not believe the people want to have their\ntaxes increased to pay for political campaigns and that is what public\nfinancing would mean.\nBut there are some constructive steps we must take to restore public\nconfidence in the elective process.\n1\nEarlier today, I outlined a sweeping program of campaign reforms\nwhich I believe we should adopt in California.\n- 7 -\nNon-partisan Secretary of State\n1.\nThe first of this eight-point program is a Constitutional\nAmendment making the Secretary of State a non-partisan office, so that\nit will be freed of any potential for personal or partisan bias.\n(When I first proposed this in the State-of-the-State Message, there\nwere those who dismissed it as a political gesture aimed against a\ncertain incumbent. Since then, his rival candidates in his own party.\nhave raised the same concerns I expressed last January).\nThis proposal is simply a frank acknowledgment that the Secretary\nof State has been given vast new responsibilities in administering and\nenforcing our election laws.\n(In effect, the person holding this office is the referee, the field\njudge and the score-keeper, all rolled up in one, with the power to call\nfouls and assess penalties, even against rival candidates. It would not\nbe right in football to have the referee participating himself and\ncalling penalties. And it is not right in politics, either).\nExisting state law already recognizes that there are certain\nfunctions of government where there is no room for partisan politics.\nThat includes the running of our schools, our county and municipal\ngovernments. Our judges---who enforce the laws and arbitrate are\nelected on a non-partisan basis. And I believe that the constitutional\nofficer whose duty it is to enforce the election laws also should be\nelected on a non-partisan basis.\n2. Along with this, we seek a law providing for an Advisory\nCommission on Fair Campaign Practices, with the non-partisan Secretary\nof State serving as chairman. The commission would have 12 members,\nincluding three citizens at large, three retired members of the judiciary,\nthree members who are county clerks or voting registrars and one\nrepresentative of each of the two major parties.\nProhibit Corporate or Union Campaign Contributions\n3. The third reform we propose is directed at campaign\ncontributions, a subject that has been much in the news of late.\nI believe the decision to contribute or not to contribute to a\npolitical campaign should be one that is made by the individual. So we\nare proposing that only individual campaign contributions be legally\nsanctioned or recognized in state and local elections in California.\n- 8 -\nRSCC\nWe propose to prohibit campaign contributions by labor unions,\ncorporations, or public employee groups or any committee, association or\norganization these groups establish for the purpose of soliciting,\nreceiving or making campaign expenditures to any candidate or for the\nsupport or defeat of any ballot measure.\n(This would not, of course, preclude individual donations by union\nmembers, businessmen or public employees. And it would not affect party\ncampaign groups which receive individual political campaign donations).\nWhen people talk of \"campaign slush funds\" or \"war chests, they are\nnot talking about the $10 to $100 or more contributed by individuals.\nThey usually mean the vast amounts raised and contributed by groups\nrepresenting some special segment of our society.\nEvery election, labor organizations contribute vast sums of money,\nliterally millions, to elect or defeat political candidates. Business\nand business groups make similar contributions. In our own state, a\nmajor public employee group has amounced plans to raise half a million\ndollars in campaign funds this year.\nThe most effective way to eliminate the potential for campaign\nabuses in this area is to limit campaign contributions to individuals,\nto donations that are frecly given without any expectation of special\nfavor or privilege.\nThis will help assure that our elections are decided by the people,\nnot by special interest groups.\nProhibit Political Activity by Public Employees on Job\n4. The fourth point in our campaign reform program is directed at\nthe potential abuse inherent when public funds or resources are used for\nor against any candidate or cause. This is why we have long had the\nHatch Act and similar laws on the state level. Yet every year, we also\nseem to have complaints that public employees are engaging in improper\npolitical activity. So we propose a law to:\n--Prohibit any appointive officer or employee of the state, the\nlegislature, any city, county, special or school district from\nparticipating in political activities of any kind during working hours.\nUnder this law, it would also be illegal for any appointive officer\nor employee to make available for any political purposes any publicly\nowned resources or equipment. Public employees are and should be free\nto participate in political affairs that are legally sanctioned---but\nnot on the taxpayer's time or with government equipment or resources.\n- 9 -\nRSCC\nBan Campaign Donations by Judges\n5. Of all the branches of government, the one which should be\nabove any suggestion of political bias, is the judicial branch. The\njudges themselves and the legal profession have recognized this in their\ncanons of ethics. They do not believe it is proper for judges to make,\nreceive or distribute campaign donations to partisan candidates.\nWe do not think it is ethical, either. And, therefore, as a fifth\npoint, we are proposing that it be illegal for any judge to contribute\nto political campaigns or causes, or to act as an intermediary in making\npolitical contributions, directly or indirectly. The sole exception\nwould be to permit judges to contribute or receive contributions on behal\nof their own campaigns for election.\nSimplified Ballot Propositions\n6. The next reform we propose is one that is close to my heart,\nI have suggested it several times before. Those of you who wonder why a\nperson winds up voting \"yes\" when he means \"no\" will understand my concer\nWe must, in fairness to the voters, simplify the impartial analysis that\nexplains the various ballot measures and propositions. To help achieve\nthis, we propose that the legislative counsel be required to confer with\nreading experts in drafting these explanations. Our goal is to assure,\nas much as we possibly can, that the language explaining the propositions\nis clear, concise and understandable to the average voter. You should\nnot have to be a doctor of jurisprudence to understand the issues at stak\nLobbyist Control/Registration\n7. I am sure most of you have heard a great deal about the subject\nof lobbyists and their activities in Sacramento. To some, the entire\nidea of legislative advocates is abhorrent. Yet our Constitution assures\nevery citizen or group of citizens the right to petition government when\nthey feel they have a grievance and to express their views on pending or\nexisting legislation.\nContrary to what some imply, lobbying is not something exclusively\npracticed by business. In fact, some of the largest legislative advocate\nprograms are maintained by government agencies themselves-- by cities,\ncounties and other levels of government. Labor unions and public\nemployee groups employ legislative advocates, along with religious\norganizations, the League of Women Voters, legal aid societies and almost\nevery other type of organization.\n- 10 -\nIn reforming our election and campaign laws, we must never infringe\non the constitutional right of any citizen or group to present its views\nto government.\nBut we can tighten the laws to assure that all lobbving activities\nare open and above board and that the regulations are enforced\nimpartially.\nSo we are proposing a much stronger law that would:\n--Require legislative advocates to register and file detailed monthly\nexpense statements with the Secretary of State (after this position is\nmade non-partisan). At the present time, these financial disclosure\nreports are filed with the legislature itself---a situation that poses an\nobvious potential for abuse.\n--Finally, we propose that California prohibit lobbyists from\ndirectly or indirectly making any political contributions to any candidate\nfor any state or local office, or to support or oppose any ballot measure.\nShorten Campaign Period\n8. The last point in our program concerns the problem that is often\ncited as the greatest cause of campaign abuses--the high cost of\npolitical campaigns.\nThe most effective way to reduce the cost of campaigning for\npolitical office is to reduce the length of the campaign itself. And\nthat is what we propose:\n--A law that would change the date of California's statewide primary\nelection from the first Tuesday in June to the first Tuesday in September.\n-- (Contrast with British system, all done in three weeks)\nBy moving our primary forward, we will provide a general election\ncampaign of about seven weeks. That is long enough to reach every voter,\nbut a short enough time span to effectively reduce the cost of campaigning.\nEvery month or week that the political season drags on increases cost of\ncampaigns.\nI realize there will be controversy over some of these proposals.\nThey represent major changes in our state's election and campaign laws.\nBut I believe we must have major changes because that is the only way to\nrestore public confidence in the elective process. Our people must be\nassured that our election laws are equitable, that they are strict enough\nO eliminate the campaign abuses about which we have heard so much and\nthat the system gives every citizen a fair opportunity to participate in\nthe political process. We can achieve this by tightening the campaign\nand election laws, by adopting these campaign reforms.\nAnd I think we should do it---this year.\n#####\n( NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes).\n- 11 -\nof\n1/5\n-\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: THURSDAY A.Ms.\nSacramento, California 95814\nMay 2, 1974\nClyde Walthall, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n4-30-74\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nLAW DAY\nMather AFB Officers Club, Sacramento\nMay 1, 1974\nThe occasion that brings us together this evening is more than a\ntestimony to our commitment to the rule of law. It is an affirmation\nof our commitment to our very form of government.\nRooted in the documents that form the basis for our system the\nConstitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence\nis the principle of government based on the rule of law.\nFrom man'searliest beginnings, people have sought a way to protect\nand safeguard the rights of the individual against injustice; some formal\nmeans of providing a shield against the whims of a king, dictator or any\nother tyrant that might be inflicted on them.\nBut success has not been easy to come by. Still the yearning for\nfreedom, for the ideal system that would assure justice for all, has been\nknown and voiced throughout man's history.\nAnd it is no accident that those civilizations which left man his\ngreatest legacy were those which took the first steps toward formalizing\na system of law.\nLiberty and freedom were familiar themes to the philosophers of\nGreece. The rule of law found an even wider means of expression in Rome\neven though it was often disregarded then as now.\nAnd SO it has been throughout history. The seeds planted in the\nGreek and Roman cultures may have been dormant for centuries at a time,\nbut only dormant. The ideals never completely died.\nThe great principles discussed by Socrates and Aristotle, the laws\nthat were flouted by the Caesars, appeared again in the Magna Carta.\nFrom those roots spread the English Common law, and a concept of freedom\nthat found its most perfect expression in our own Constitution and Bill\nof Rights. I wonder at times if we have placed enough emphasis on this\nfact of history. Certainly there is not a deep and widespread\nunderstanding of our Constitution and its origin.\nIn all the turmoil that led to the American revolution, the single\nstandard which shines brightest is a commitment to law. Ours was not a\nrevolution to exchange one set of rulers for another. It was a\nphilosophic revolution certainly it was not a revolt by an unruly mob.\nLaw Day\nMen of substance, tradesmen, lawyers, farmers engaged in a\nthoughtful quest for freedom, for independence, for a system of government\nin which the law would be the supreme arbitrator and justice the ultimate\nobjective.\nIt seems strange that it took man 6,000 years to arrive at the\nsimple concept that government exists only to serve the people.\nBut by the same token it is not strange that a government which made\nthis its guiding principle is now the oldest continuous Republic in the\nworld.\nRight now, on the other side of the world, another May Day\nobservance is taking place, celebrating a system in which the state is\nsupreme and the individual only an afterthought, a tool of the system.\nWe have recently seen an example of the striking contrast between\nour different systems of government.\n(cq)\nThe famous writer, Alexandr Sclzhenitsyn became a virtual prisoner\nin his own land for the crime of writing a truth that the State in which\nhe lived would have preferred to hide.\nAnd ultimately, he was exiled.\nI have had students sometimes ask me if there is really such a great\ndifference between our two systems. They say they have read the Soviet\nconstitution and their laws, and found frequent use of the words freedom\nand justice.\nThe right of free speech, which we so often take for granted, is\nmentioned, too. But there is a difference between our two constitutions.\nThe difference is so subtle we often do overlook it, but it is so great\nit tells the entire story. Their constitution says governments grant\nthese rights. Ours says we, the people, are born with these rights and\nno government can take them from us.\nThe rights guaranteed by our Constitution, by our laws, have a higher\norigin than the state or the dictates of any group or individual. These\nbasic rights are divinely conferred on us at birth.\nAnd yet today this system is under attack, as are most of our\ninstitutions. We hear our system unfavorably compared to that other\nwhich has produced a society in which everything that is not compulsory\nis prohibited.\nAnd some who attack from within claim we are deficient in the very\nfreedoms that permit them to speak, to write, to openly declare their\ncomplaints and grievances.\nLaw Day\nAt this moment, when all of those institutions which form the\nfabric of our society are being challenged, it seems there is an ongoing\ncontest to see which is held in least regard, the courts, the executive\nor legislative branches of government, or in our economic system-\nbusiness or labor.\nNow there is nothing wrong with a people being constantly vigilant\nagainst injustice. Caution about government is part of our origin. Our\nfounding fathers told us never to give any power to our best friend we\nwouldn't give to our worst enemy.\nYet so much of the criticism is misinformed or worse, deliberately\ndistorted. Rarely do we hear from the most vocal critics the balance,\nthe other side that is always necessary to make intelligent, informed\ndecisions.\nWhen I say ours is the best and most advanced system of political\nfreedom yet devised by man, I certainly do not mean that we are perfect.\nI hope none of us will ever be so smug as to think that there are no more\ninjustices to correct, no more wrongs to right.\nThe ability to change was built into our system, but let's be sure\nit is constructive change. One hundred years after the signing of the\nConstitution, England's great statesman, Gladstone said of it: \"I\nconsider the (U.S.) Constitution to be the most remarkable political\nadvance ever accomplished at one time by the human intellect.\"\nTo subvert the law and twist the truth while chanting the words\nfreedom and justice is the greatest of hypocrisies.\nThe revolutionary rhetoric of a few years past has now escalated\nbeyond verbal debate and has become violent attack. In the name of\njustice and freedom, self-proclaimed revolutionaries rob and kill and\nkidnap. They talk of truth, but terror is their weapon.\nThey march under many different banners, but they all get around to\npromising prosperity and liberty. The price for these promises is a\nsociety in which lawlessness and violence are substituted for the rule\nof law.\nOur two party system makes for partisanship. But we must not allow\npolitical differences to paralyze society's ability to protect itself\nagainst crime and lawlessness.\nI am not speaking now of abstract philosophy. I am speaking of real\nand urgent threats to society, to our young people, to all citizens.\n- 3 -\nLaw Day\n5/1/74\nAll of us have been aware for years of the widespread drug addiction\nin our midst. In the past decade, the drug culture has found root in\nAmerica in a way that most of us could never have believed possible.\nPossibly some of you have known families where a youngster has\nbecome hooked on hard narcotics. You are familiar with the tragedy this\nmeans, for the victims themselves, for their families and friends and\nfor society.\nA whole generation of young people has been exposed to the drug fads\nand the drug culture. And too many have been lured into accepting the\nidea that drug addiction is somehow an expression of personal freedom.\nAdults who should know better have tried to make smoking marijuana\na sort of sociological protest, instead of seeing it for what it is: a\npath that has led too many youngsters into stronger narcotics and\nsometimes, to a tragic death or a life of crime.\nOur law enforcement officials see the impact of drug abuse another\nway. They know that drug abuse is responsible for a great part of the\ncrime with which the police must contend every day. And yet when law\nenforcement seeks to strike at the cause, and eliminate the pushers who\nprofit from drug abuse, they find resistance to stronger laws.\nWe had an example of this in the legislature this year. After a\nlong study into the weak links in the whole system of criminal justice,\nwe found that the law was not dealing adequately with the threat of drug\nabuse.\nToo many pushers were getting off with light sentences or probation.\nAnd so we asked for a law that would make a minimum prison sentence\nmandatory for both drug pushers and those convicted of a crime in which a\ndeadly weapon was used.\nAt a time when drug abuse threatenes hundreds of thousands of\nyoungsters every year, when crime stemming from drug addiction is costing\nthe lives and property of innocent victims, we do not believe it is\nunreasonable to request stronger laws. Unfortunately, the law we sought\nwas blocked in the legislature. It was blocked because the prevailing\nmajority in one committee is philosophically committed to a more liberal\nview of drug abuse, to the strange concept that the way to fight crime is\nnot with stronger law enforcement, but by redefining what constitutes a\ncrime. There are two ways to reduce crime statistics reduce crime or\nmake the crimes legal. The right choice should be pretty apparent.\nHow can we expect to wipe out the drug traffic if those who make our\nlaws are unwilling to act forcefully to put drug pushers in prison where\nLaw Day\nThe tragic answer is: we can never expect success in the fight\nagainst drug abuse until our society shows that it has the will and the\ndetermination to act.\nRight now we are all disturbed by another type of crime: the\nkidnapping or shooting of innocent people, in the name of social protest\nor for no reason at all. After several years of hearing some among our\nintellectuals proclaiming the right of individuals to decide which laws\nthey would obey---we should not be surprised.\nNo amount of rhetoric can change a crime into a social or political\ncause. Kidnapping is a violent crime and those who engage in this kind\nof terrorism, whatever their alleged motives are not romantic\nrevolutionaries; they are common, sordid, vicious criminals and should be\ntreated accordingly.\nMurder is murder, whether it is committed as an individual act or\nas a protest against society. And we should treat these random shootings\nas crimes of violence. We should exert every power at our command to\nbring the guilty to justice swiftly.\nThere is no inconsistency in being a strong supporter of due process\nof law and an equally strong advocate of speedy justice. In fact, speedy\ntrial is one of the guarantees in the Constitution.\nFrom the standpoint of protecting society, any undue delay that\nleaves a guilty criminal free to commit still other crimes is too long.\nThat is why our system of justice must make efficiency in the courts\na reality. The legal profession has a great responsibility in these\nefforts. The people look to the legal profession for the leadership to\nreform the courts.\nBut we must all accept the broader responsibility for re-establishing\nthe public's confidence in other areas in government, in our economic\nsystem in the law itself.\nAfter Watergate, we heard some calls for law schools to include a\ncourse on ethics as part of the training for every would-be lawyer.\nI have no quarrel with that. But I would like to observe that some\nof the things which led to this call involve allegations of wrongdoing\nthat are really not exclusively matters of legal ethics. They are\nsimply a matter of right and wrong. And isn't graduate school a little\nlate to be introducing a student to ethics and morality?\nPrecepts of right and wrong must begin early, starting with the\nfamily itself.\n- 5 -\nLaw Day\nThe teaching of respect for the law cannot be left to education\nalone. It is a responsibility we all must assume, in our daily lives,\nin every school, in our churches, throughout our social structure.\nThe law is only as effective as we ourselves make it. But the law\nshould not outlaw common sense. In eliminating God from the classroom,\nhave we also canceled the age old virtues respect for the law but even\nmore important the need to preserve it not because of a fear of\npunishment, but because it is morally right?\nWith freedom goes responsibility, a responsibility that can only be\nmet by the individual himself. This is an eternal truth as valid today\nas it was in 1791 when Edmund Burke said: \"Men are qualified for civil\nliberty in the exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains\nupon their own appetites\n=\nWe could add 10 thousand laws to our codes. And yet they could\nnever be effectively enforced unless a majority of our people are willing\nto accept the code of conduct set forth by the 10 commandments.\nThe ultimate goal, the ideal of the law, is to assure justice for\nall.\nIf this ideal is to be a reality, all of us must accept our share\nof the responsibility.\n######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes).\n- 6 -\n5/4\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: P.Ms. SATURDAY\nSacramento, California 95814\nMAY 4, 1974\nClyde Walthall, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n5-3-74\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nVietnam Military Memorial Ceremony\nAngeles National Forest\nMay 4, 1974\nA little more than a year ago, the first American prisoners of war\ncame home from Vietnam. They received a hero's welcome, which they\nproperly deserved.\nIt was the kind of homecoming that I am sure most of us would have\nliked to give to every American who served honorably in Southeast Asia.\nUnfortunately, because of the length and the nature of the war, it\nwas not possible to have a suitable ceremony for every returning Vietnam\nveteran. Yet we are grateful to each and every one.\nOur reason for being here today is to dedicate a memorial to the\n6,000 Californians who gave their lives in the defense of freedom in\nSoutheast Asia.\nOn such an occasion, there simply are no words that can possibly\nconvey our innermost feelings.\nThere are those who say that Vietnam was a war without heroes,\nbecause the conflict became a controversy that divided our people for so\nlong. I do not accept that. They were all heroes, especially those we\nare honoring here today.\nDuring another war, in another time, Abraham Lincoln spoke at a\nsimilar ceremony. He said, the fallen heroes at Gettysburg gave the\n\"last full measure of devotion\" for the cause of freedom. And a century\nlater, another group of gallant Americans did the same in Southeast Asia.\nMany words have been spoken about Vietnam. Even more has been\nwritten. There are those who question America's participation in the\nVietnam war. Yet no one can ever question the motivations nor the\nbravery of those we are honoring today.\nThey gave all that they had in freedom's cause, as hundreds of other\nAmericans have during the great struggles in our nation's history. And\nno group of Americans were ever more deserving of honor than the fallen\nheroes of Vietnam.\nWe must never forget their courage and their sacrifice. We must\nnever permit anyone to denigrate their gallantry or their unselfish\ndevotion to freedom.\n- 1 -\nVietnam Military Memorial\nWe are here today to dedicate a part of this great forest as a\nplace of reverence. Each tree is a living memorial to those who gave\ntheir lives in Vietnam.\nI think it is especially significant that this program was\nsponsored not by any official group, but by the Los Angeles Chapter of\nthe Association of the United States Army. It is a project undertaken\nby men and women who have served their country and who now seek to honor\nthe memory of their fallen comrades.\nNo one knows more intimately the terrible human cost of freedom\nthan those who shared in the struggle to preserve it.\nIt has been said that a nation that forgets its defenders will\nitself be forgotten. This grove of living things is dedicated to the\nmemory of those who are gone. But let us resolve that they shall never\nbe forgotten.\nThe time we spend on this early is always limited. Brave men live\nand brave men die.\nBut the courage they displayed will never die. Their memory will\nlive forever in the hearts of their comrades and countrymen.\n#######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes).\n- 2 -\n+\n-\n5/8\nto\nX\nthe\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nSacramento, California 95814\nMAY 8, 1974\nClyde Walthall, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n5-8-74\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nState Women's and Men's Club Luncheon\nSacramento\nMay 8, 1974\nThis is the last time we will meet together under these circumstances\nBoth Nancy and I are going to miss what has been one of the things we\nhave looked forward to each year.\nI know you have heard me say it many times before but I will say it\nonce again on this our last such meeting California has the finest\ngroup of employees to be found anywhere, at any level of government.\nAnd I think the proof of that is the fact that so often the\nfederal government and other states try to lure some of you away from us.\nI know every governor in the future will learn to appreciate your hard\nwork and your dedication, as I did from my earliest days in Sacramento.\nI realize there have been times when we have not always viewed things\nthe same way. Like anything else in this life, there have been good\ntimes and difficult times. There have been times when we disagreed on\npriorities in allocating state resources.\nI want you to know how much I appreciate the understanding and the\nsupport that so many of you have given to us---even during the difficult\ntimes.\nA government (any government) has the same problems that you or any\nother citizen has when you make up your own budget priorities. There are\nalways more things you would like to do that you cannot afford to do.\nWe have tried to the best of our ability to upgrade the salary\nand benefit levels of our state employees, to give you the pay and\nbenefits you deserve. And yet there were times in these years of economic\ndislocation when we had to ask your tolerance and patience. When we\ncould, we tried to implement measures to improve things for you.\nSince 1967 salary increases total almost 50 percent.\nWe sponsored and put into effect the most significant increase of\nretirement benefits in 20 years. This was achieved by adopting the so-\ncalled \"1/50th at age 60\" retirement formula which I am sure is familiar\nto you. In effect, this action amounted to about a 20 percent increase\nin retirement benefits.\nIn the same year, and for the first time in history, we adopted some\npermanent fringe benefits that never before had been available to state\nemployees, including time and one half for overtime, night differential\npay and unemployment insurance coverage.\n- 1 -\nState Men's/Women's Club\nI know we have been in a period of severe inflation. The cost of\nliving has been going up for you, just as it has for every other group\nof citizens.\nOver the years, partly because of inflation, we know that the salary\nlevels of many job classifications got out of line and fell behind.\nMore than two years ago we commissioned a study to find a way to bring\nyour salaries into better balance with that paid for similar work outside\nof state government.\nAs a result of this effort, we embarked on a program to correct\nsalary inequities within state service.\nAlong with cost-of-living adjustments, we made some specific\nadjustments across the board in those civil service job categories where\nthe inequity was greatest.\nIt was a two-stage program. But as you know, just about the time\nwe were putting it into effect, the national government adopted wage and\nprice controls. And we ran into a crunch with the Cost of Living Council.\nLast year, we proposed as part of this inequity and cost-of-living\nadjustment a salary package that would average a total of 12½ percent.\nBut the Cost of Living Council ruled that we could not give this full\namount at that time. We did everything we could to get them to change\ntheir minds. This was not just a gesture with us. We meant business.\nWe sent our Finance director, Verne Orr, back to Washington to personally\nargue with the Cost of Living Council to give us the authority to grant\nyou the full salary adjustments we had proposed. When they refused, we\ndid not just spend the money on other things. We put it into a special\nfund, and held it in the budget so we could eventually pass it along to\nyou.\nRecently, there was some legal action to free these funds and a\nruling. But the most significant thing that happened is the Cost of\nLiving Council went out of business April 30, except for some cleaning up.\nThe national government decided it would let the council's authority\nexpire on schedule.\nI am happy to say with that action, we were free to act on these\nsalary increases. You will be getting the full amounts authorized by the\nPersonnel Board in your paychecks at the end of this month. In fact, you\nare earning them right now. They will be included in your May and June\npaychecks.\nAs you also know, the federal government had indicated there may be\nsome further legal action to hold up the retroactive part of this pay\nincrease.\nSo far, we have received no official notification of this, so we\nare going right ahead with our plans to distribute this retroactive pay,\nfor all those who had part of their salary increases held back. If we\nhave our way, the lump-sum checks will start going out to you early in\nJune.\nWe believe you should have had this salary increase in the first\nplace. That is why we put it in the budget last July. We think you\nshould have it now. And we are going to do our darnedest to see that\nyou get it.\nIt is, of course, in addition to the salary and benefit package we\nproposed for the coming year which totals almost 6 percent.\nEven while we are meeting here today, the state Personnel Board is\nholding hearings to recommend the specific percentage amounts that should\nbe given in salaries.\nIn undertaking a study of the state's total compensation system, we\nhave been trying to acknowledge the vital role of fringe benefits.\nFringe benefits have become more and more important in arriving at a\nbalanced total compensation package, not just in state government, but\nthroughout our economy. From the employer's standpoint, fringe benefits\namount to about 25 percent of the total payroll costs.\nThey are no longer a minor item in calculating total compensation,\neither to the employer or to the employee. Because of taxes and inflation\nwe recognize that in some cases, fringe benefits have an even greater\nvalue because they increase net take-home pay and are non-taxable.\nThat is why we developed a total compensation package, to improve\nyour employee benefits in the coming fiscal year and to keep them\nequitable on an ongoing basis. Total compensation is more than just a\none time package of benefits. It is a technique for measuring state\nemployee benefits against those offered elsewhere in public and private\nemployment, and for making appropriate adjustments.\nMost of you are familiar with the recommendations in the total\ncompensation package, so I will not go over the entire list with you today\nHowever, there are a couple of items that you have indicated are\nvery important to you.\nOne of these involves health insurance. We have increased the state'.\ncontribution to health insurance since we have been in Sacramento. But\nthe package now under consideration calls for the state, for the first\ntime, to provide a full 80 percent of the cost of the individual\nemployee's monthly health insurance premium, along with a very substantial\nincrease in the state's share of the cost for family coverage.\n- 3 -\nState Men's/Momen's Club\nThis will mean a greater net increase in take home pay than if you\nreceived the same amount in a taxable salary increase.\nPart of the package also recognizes that inflation has had an\nimpact on employees who retired before the 1/50th retirement formula\nwas adopted.\nSo we have proposed that this formula be adopted for those who\nretired before it was put into effect.\nThe approach we have taken in the total compensation study\nacknowledges the fact that we live in a period of inflation. You, of\ncourse, know that no one can make commitments that will be binding on\nfuture administrations.\nWe can, however, establish basic guidelines that will enable the\nstate to develop a well coordinated and balanced program of fringe\nbenefits in the future.\nThe state has an obligation to its employees, to carry forward a\ncontinuous program of evaluation and when justified, to make salary\nadjustments both on the basis of the cost of living and to correct\ninequities that may develop in the pay levels for specific jobs.\nThis has been our goal in programs we have already adopted. It is\nwhat we are trying to do this year and in the longer range compensation\nguidelines that we establish for the future.\nElected officials also have an obligation to the people of\nCalifornia, to manage the state's affairs as economically as possible, so\nthat we can meet all legitimate costs without increasing taxes.\nYou are state employees. You are also taxpayers. Part of the\nreason you need and should have inequity and cost of living pay\nadjustments is because of the impact of higher taxes.\nWe have been trying to strike the maximum balance, so that as state\nemployees you will receive the salary and benefits you deserve and at\nthe same time, as taxpayers, you will not have those salaries eaten away\nby higher taxes and deductions out of your paychecks.\n######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes).\n- 4 -"
}