Ronald Reagan |
October 28, 1966
|
|
Ronald Reagan
Republican candidate for Governor of California; President, Screen Actors Guild (1947-1952); Actor, Knute Rockne-All American, King's Row; Former television host, General Electric Theater and Death Valley Days
Q: I think that we should have this last question answered first, before Mrs. Reagan leaves. Would you remain just a moment, Mrs. Reagan, please? I was going to present this last, but I must present it before she leaves, and she has to leave because of another appointment.
This is addressed to you, Sir. If you'll return to the podium, you can answer it. The question is: When do you expect to see Mrs. Reagan again?
A: [Mrs. Reagan whispers something to her husband.]
Mr. Reagan (talking to his wife): Thank you. You say that; I'm not going to repeat it.
Mrs. Reagan: I said, "It can't happen too soon for me."
Mr. Reagan: Actually, the answer is, tomorrow afternoon, thank Heaven.
Q: Well, they seem to be on speaking terms anyway, don't they?
Mr. Reagan, why did not this face-to-face debate develop?
A: Well, when I proposed the debate and two committees were organized - one of the members of that committee, Bob Monagan, is sitting right down here, our minority leader in the assembly - I expressed my views to them of what I envisioned. And I said I felt very strongly that there were so many programs of the news type in which the governor and I have both appeared, questioned by the press, that I felt a debate, a legitimate debate, should be one based on the issues that would be determined mutually between us on the basis of polls and so forth, and then we should have a face-to-face confrontation and debate.
The governor's proposal was instead just another one of the programs with newsmen asking questions of us, and finally in the negotiations we offered to split the difference and go down the middle with half of the program open debate, and half of the program questions and answers, and they refused to even give on that term. They insisted only on their format for the debate, and so there's no debate.
Q: Thank you. I think, ladies and gentlemen, I suggest you withhold the applause. No one's in favor of this man anyway. The next question, Mr. Reagan, is: By what method do you propose to reduce welfare expenses without hardships to the needy?
A: Well, maybe this was written before I came to that in my speech. I thought that I had covered that. What I envision first of all is an administrative reduction, as I pointed out, that I think can save millions of dollars, because even in single counties, welfare directors have proposed plans for administrative streamlining that end up in actual count, by their count, of millions of dollars in savings in these individual counties.
I believe that there are still areas that we're not doing enough in welfare. In this regard I would suggest those people who have the problem, children with a hearing problem, we don't have all the facilities that we should have. They know the tragedy of seeing children who go months and even years on a waiting list because there isn't an educational facility for them to start their education. There are other problems of this kind need solving.
While there's no proposal that we retreat from our obligation to those of true need, there is a proposal, as I say, that will eventually start reducing the welfare load simply by channeling more people into being self-sustaining. And I would like to point out that where the contrary view is evidenced is the fact that this year, the governor has been claiming, and rightfully so, that we have reduced unemployment in California to a six-year low, at the same time that he asked for a $90 million increase in this present budget for welfare. Now I don't know how we can have it both ways - reducing the unemployed, reducing those with need, and yet expanding the cost of the program. And I say that as you put these people through the job retraining and into these jobs, the shrinkage will occur and the need for people on welfare will reduce the burden without reducing the actual subsistence that should be given to the person who is receiving the help.
Q: Mr. Reagan, there are several questions here regarding the University of California problem. I think maybe this is typical: Why must we tolerate the present conditions as they exist now at the University of California?
A: Well, I realize of course that I wade into one now in which this is like "A tree's a tree." I didn't say it. I believe that what has happened at the University - and I think one thing we must all keep in mind - throughout the state I have found in the long months, particularly the primary, when I campaigned on a basis of question-and-answer before every audience, that the people of this state are deeply concerned and have lost confidence with regard to the campus, particularly at Berkeley. But I think all of us have to keep in mind we have the most unique, and I think the greatest university system in the world because Californians many years ago had the confidence in their fellow Californians to create a system whereby the regents were given the full power to run the university.
A Rule 5 adopted in 1934 spelled out academic freedom. This rule, I believe, is being violated today. Article 9, clause 9 of the State Constitution spells out the keeping of the university free of involvement in partisan politics; that it will neither participate nor will partisan politics get into the university. Now what I think has happened, and I believe I have evidence to substantiate this, is that for the first time in the history of this university, we have a governor who has interfered politically with the administration of the university. And I offer as evidence the fact that one of the regents appointed by this governor is serving as the director of his political campaign.
Now, I was asked by a member of the press if I would pass legislation or urge legislation to make it impossible for a regent to do this. We never have had such legislation, and I don't think it's required now. All that I think is required is to appoint regents who'd have too much principle to do this.
I have proposed an inquiry, and the governor chooses to call it an "inquisition," but I chose a man very carefully. I tried as hard as I could to figure some way to get at this problem to restore the confidence of the people in the university that would not involve political interference. And I chose John McCone, who had been appointed by the governor himself to investigate in the very sensitive area of Watts. I think his credentials are impeccable - he is an alumnus of the university - and I said that as far to John McCone, who himself wanted to know that there would be no political involvement.
And I said, "John, as governor, if this goes through, I would end my relationship with you at the point at which I appoint you, and you then would appoint a panel of blue-ribbon citizens." And I even suggested - I said, "You might consider appointing a panel of, say, 15, and allow the regents to choose from that panel, a half dozen to join you. And then your inquiry as to what is going on, if something is needed, what that should be; but your information to the people about the situation would be between you and the regents and the administration of the university." And I think that all that is needed is to give back to the regents and the administration the right to run the university without political considerations.
Q: Thank you. Do you firmly believe in limiting the governorship in California to two terms?
A: Yes, I do, and I'd be very happy to start with me. See this is entirely different than legislators or congressmen or statesmen of that kind. In the executive position, both at the presidential level where we now have limited this constitutionally, or at a governor's level, there is the opportunity to build up a machine, to build up a palace guard, and pretty soon there is interference actually with the people's right to effectively counter this. And I think at this moment I am campaigning against one of the most powerful machines that we've ever seen in California.
Q: Ladies and gentlemen, I apologize to have to restrain the applause because we have such a terrific number of questions we can't cover ten percent of them, and I'm sure that you're very anxious to get the replies of this great leader. This question is: What is your position on withholding California state income taxes?
A: I regret that we withhold it at any level. I think when you pay taxes it should hurt. The history of state withholding taxes is usually, if you'll look at the several states that have them, you'll see there's been quite a record of increases in that tax. It's much easier to put over when its figures are digits on the stub of a check instead of money coming out of your pocket. I think that mainly the withholding tax is a one-time windfall, and then beyond that, as I say, it becomes this excuse for something else. I will tell you now I'm pledged and believe all the way to the depths of my being, I will do everything I can to oppose ever having a withholding tax in California.
Q: Thank you. Now this is rather a statement of fact, presumably, and ends up in a question. There is a man in Sacramento who does not believe in capital punishment, who commuted the death sentence of a man who had raped and killed a nine-year-old girl. What do you think of this?
A: Well, I don't think there's any one of us that doesn't have down in his deepest corner of his heart, some doubts and considerations; any who's been raised in our Judeo-Christian tradition is worried about who has the responsibility for taking human life. I've gone through this thing and can remember a period in my life when I was on the other side of the question, but I believe now, in view of what law enforcement officers tell us and those who have the most knowledge and experience, that we do have a right to take life in defense of our own. And I believe that it is a deterrent, that there are people not murdered and alive because of the threat of the death penalty and therefore I believe that we must retain the death penalty.
Q: What stand do you take regarding the Klu Klux Klan, the Birch Society, the Rockwell Nazi Group?
A: Well now that's, that's sort of a fishing question - it's got a hook in it. First of all, here are three organizations listed, two of which are on the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations, and one of which is not, and one of which, whether we agree or disagree with it, it has been ruled it evidently has no record of subversion, and therefore they have even declined at the national level to investigate it.
I overwhelmingly repudiate all organizations that are on that subversive list. I think that they have been put there after due consideration. I repudiate all organizations like the Klan and the Nazi Group, who are based on the idea that some of our citizens should be denied their constitutional rights because of their race or religion. I think that bigotry and racial discrimination and prejudice, and religious prejudice, is a kind of evil sickness and I think that the right thinking people of this country should be dedicated to making sure that those who practice discrimination walk alone.
On the Birch Society, this is the hook. I'm not a member, have no intention of joining, never have been a member, not going to ask their support. The governor has worked very hard at trying to get me to do something that I believe would be morally wrong. He is trying to get me, as a private citizen, to act as judge and jury and a kind of vigilante, and to blanket in tight and repudiate an entire group of people with whom I'm not acquainted, simply on the basis of disagreement with their expressed positions. And I do disagree with many of them, and I certainly disagree with the remarks of their founder, Robert Welch: I think his statements about President Eisenhower are thoroughly reprehensible. I disagree with regard to the impeachment of Earl Warren. I disagree with regard to a stand favoring the Liberty Amendment. I disagree with these things; but I do not, I did not, when I was opposing the communists in the motion picture industry when they were committing acts of violence and outright trying to take over control of our industry, I did not engage in McCarthyism then, and I'm not going to engage in McBrownism now.
Q: Mr. Ronald Reagan, the Republican candidate for governor, we have but a meeting here in the regular Friday Commonwealth Club luncheon. We have but time for one more question, in fact we have a little more than passed our time. Following your reply to this question we will adjourn, but I wonder if everybody would be kind enough to remain in their places until Mr. Reagan has left the room. He'll be in a hurry to fill another appointment and so it'll greatly facilitate his withdrawal. The question, I'm sure, comes from a lot of admirers, Mr. Reagan, and you might not be able to answer it fully but we'd like your best thought on it. The question is: Why do you think these thousands of people are here today?
A: Well, I think that you have a highly successful and energetic club that has won the people's confidence and you serve a very fine lunch. I'd rather not go beyond that point, but I do just want to tell you that for people who just came here because of loyalty to the club and in order to get a good lunch, you have been most warm and hospitable, and I am more grateful than I can ever say to you for the way that you've received Nancy and myself. Thank you.
Generously funded by:
Tom Campbell
Dee Dee Myers