Voter's Pipeline; Interview with Lieutenant Governor Mike Curb

Lieutenant Governor Mike very busy very much in the political headlines of California has the highest ranking Republican and the second highest official in state government. He has his own views on priorities with his state following his sweeping presidential victory of former California governor Ronald Reagan. In this exclusive interview for public television he will be discussing some of those issues. And now here's your host Jim Cooper. Lieutenant Governor Mike Curb from the day took office almost two years ago. Had been outspoken and positive about his views of what's right and what's wrong about California government often these clashed openly with Governor Brown on policy matters. With a landslide victory of former Governor Ronald Reagan as president many changes will be taking place at all levels of government. We're going to talk with Mr. Kirby about his views on the changes today here in Sacramento. Lieutenant Governor Mike was elected to office the 978 and served as ex-official president of the state Senate. In addition to being the lieutenant governor the chair of the commission for economic development the commission of the

California State Commission on agriculture. He was formerly the president of MGM Records and his own record company. My current production and Warner club records. I'd like to start by your perception of what happened Senator Baker. US Senator Baker had described what happened on November 4th of the political earthquake. There were mandate there were messages I'd like to have your vision having served on the national committee in support of President Reagan right really said by the voters on the Member for it. So I think we. We saw this coming all along of course none of us. Saw the margin of victory that eventually transpired but you know I served as the national vice chairman of Governor Reagan's campaign and I could see people wanting change in fact poll after poll showed that even above inflation and above are serious crime problems. People were talking about the leadership vacuum in our country run poll taken by one of the major

networks showed that 63 percent of the people believed that we had a lack of leadership in America. And I believe that on November 4th the American people resolve the leadership issue they put in a leader. Now can this leader solve the major problems we face in this nation the crime problem the inflation problem the unemployment problems. I believe Ronald Reagan can and that's why I served as national vice chairman. I've lived in California I've grown up in California and I know what Ronald Reagan did for this state. I know the situation the state was in when he took over the state was growing in the river a million dollars a day and he reversed those those losses and created the environment where we've been able to have surpluses and remember the surpluses that accords we had we dreamed of in later years. But I feel so strongly that that he will be able to provide that leadership that our nation has lacked.

And to restore confidence which is a problem and hope among our people of the state of California is beset by problems that are symptomatic of the problems of the whole country. Twenty percent inflation 16 percent mortgage rate the automobile industry is virtually the standstill the housing industry is virtually the stencil a dreadful time economically speaking. Rep you think that in the future for California as well of the country because of this changeover that's going to happen January 20th when when the president is sworn in. Well there are areas where we're insulated from some of the national problems because many of our industries such as the defense industries and others are not necessarily tied to the problems of the auto industry faces. But for the most part California will suffer to the extent the rest of the nation suffers. And I think that we enjoy a good relationship with President elect Reagan and I think President like regular will always have part of his heart here in California. I think he understands our problems he also understands the great opportunities we have in California. But

I do feel that that where we'll see the greatest problems in our our housing. We have got to remove these constraints that are stopping the building of a favorable housing. Are the maze of permit procedures that that we have today to even initiate housing creates in some cases as much as a three year delay and during that three year period inflation sets in new permits set in and pretty soon we have the cost of the house almost double what it was when I was a tenant the real problem not just housing. It's affordable housing. Our young people can't get into housing and that's that's sad isn't it. Well it's very sad because we in many cases we have the jobs here that we can't find the people to take those jobs because they can't relocate. How can you buy a home in a daze at today's prices. So something has to be done in people of all ages are suffering especially those without homes at

this time. So the real problem is getting moderately priced veritable housing for California. If we take President Reagan President elect Reagan's word that he wants to see more problems in this country more problems in all the states by the private sector of the economy instead of looking to government for solving problems if we take that to be true and we add to that the fact that California still has a democratically Demba dominated legislature is that message getting through the people who are Democrats as well as people who are Republicans about making changes and lessening some of these restraints that you talked about than in government. Well I think the message is getting there. The question is how do we get get the majority to to in effect bring it together. The major problem as I see it today is that our legislature as has been extremely awkward period for one year we've had two leading Democrats fighting for the speakership. And I think it affected the amount of legislation that

affected any kind of cohesive planning. But yes I think I think that that the message is there that there are too many restrictions and too many regulations and that what we're doing in effect is to find a situation where we have no answer for a problem and rather than making a decision we're delaying. And this is causing problems in housing. It's causing problems across the board. Threat we need is leadership. People have to be willing to make a decision in government. And accuser we're going to be wrong. But no decision and indecisive and you having hootin is what we have to overcome. You're saying that we've got a lot of when the when the bloody battle was on between Leo McCarthy and Howard Berman and now it's been resolved by Willie Brown going into the speakership. Well let's look at last year we had Berman and McCarthy vying for the speakership for Democrats fighting one another. Targeting dollars against one another's supporters. There are Democrats and Republicans. Then we had the situation where Governor Brown was out of the state running for the presidency. Nicer. I've served almost 200

days as the acting governor of the state. That's incredible in two in two years of office and I was like two years in less than two years. Two hundred of those you were governor. That's close to 200 there would be a hundred ninety four I don't know six I don't have the exact number now but the the thing is that we have and this is just not the way for a state to be run and I think that this year we need to get down to business and make sure this state is operated properly and that we deal with the priorities that are seriously affecting the people of California. You've had some very sharp legal battles particularly over that matter of who is governor and when the when the governors of the state. What about that now. You resolve some of the legal difficulties and resolve some of your philosophical difficulties with the governor. Roy I have not resolved my philosophical different ways with the governor. There is war we stay and I listen to you he was running for president as a liberal Democrat and I was the national vice chairman for President elect Reagan So obviously we're in two different camps are the first and the first lieutenant governor this century from a party

other than that of the governors. There have been problems but I decided early on that I wanted to resolve the matter. The constitution clearly states that when the governor is out of state the lieutenant governor is governor. Now that first year or the top here because I did challenge it it had to go our way to the Supreme Court. Fortunately we won the Supreme Court decision after we won it. It was my feeling that we then had to figure out a way to make this work. Now we all know we've had a number of emergencies wrong Governor Brown have been out of state we have the prison guard strike in northern California. We had the earthquake down in Imperial County we've had agricultural strikes in three different counties we had the floods early this year in 11 different parts of California when recently the Southern California fires we have in Briar's in San Bernardino and then each of these instances Governor Brown was out of state. And I as acting governor I had to sign the emergency orders and in many cases request from President for a quarter of the the emergency funds and other

aspects of emergency work from the OS such as the National Guard and National Guard's assistance and so forth. So had we not challenge Governor Brown had we not. We received a legal ruling from the Supreme Court of the state that the lieutenant governor is the governor and the members out of state. I would not have been able to take this action while I take these actions while the governor was out of state. Let me read a quote from Governor Brown who is describing what he thinks of the Reagan administration and what's in store the right thing we're talking about. He said that the things Reagan did mistakenly good for California but then he had he put the caveat in but the Democrats maintain that intractable economic and geopolitical problems will undermine the Republican president's national popularity in a matter of months he said after the first for ever. And the good feeling there is going to be a certain intellectual disintegration that will create the vacuum. Would you comment on that your perception of that same situation. Well I think what he's saying and part of that of course is true.

Obviously there's a certain honeymoon period when a president takes office in the particular days or whatever. Well the speaker of the house that O'Neill a Democrat has said that he won't criticize President Reagan for six months. Yes there is some cooperation in the from the from many of the Democrats in the Senate. There will be that particular period I think the expectations of the American people for President Reagan will be very very high. He had a tremendous mandate. It's going to be impossible for him to do everything that the people of this. Still divides in this nation of ours want to see happen but I have a feeling that President Reagan will do one thing. We have not seen for many many years and that is who will set this nation on a firm course and leave it on that course. The problem we've seen in the past and that is that you mean domestically speaking of the economics of what I'm talking about it an economic course for for the nation that will not change rule of never of power one set of economic principle all the way through. We tried this for three months and that for three months and now we've ended up with inflation and a recession and

unemployment all at the same time. He will set this nation on a firm course and leave it there. And I think that will instill confidence among the people and I think people will start investing in this country and it will and will have an incentive to say I'm a foreign policy standpoint. I think he will let our allies know that this nation is going to stay on a firm course and that we're not going to change from day to day and our foreign policy and I think that this will will reassure our allies and bring about a greater degree of credibility for our nation's foreign policy. Let's come to our own state because he is the governor the former Governor Reagan and they're going to cut spending in the federal budget. But talk about the state budget a budget of twenty three point nine. Million dollars billion dollars twenty three point nine billion dollars which it appears we don't have. Something like 700 or 800 billion dollars right now eight hundred million dollars. In other words out of a twenty three point nine billion dollar budget we may be as much as 800 million to a billion

dollars in deficit. Added to that we have the news that came up in the last week that hundred and fifty million dollars is going to be set up in state of California in federal funds because they failed to act to enact a smog control legislation for cars. What about that if you had those two deficits together the 800 million that we have already plus the Eight hundred million cut off on the on the federal fund because of the lack of smog control legislation really do about the twenty three point nine billion dollar budget. Well half of it we can resolve by getting our legislature together and I think now that we at least have elected a speaker and we saw the majority of our problems within the various political parties in terms of legislative leadership I think we can get the inspection program resolved and that will restore about eight hundred fifty million dollars. Now as to the other short par which is approximately an additional eight hundred million. This has been created because of the fact that many people in government

did not level with the people after the proper press passage of Proposition 13. Now I was a strong supporter of Prop 13 but after it passed all of us knew that if we were going to see a 57 percent cut in property taxes there would have to be corresponding cuts in other areas of government. But what happened was that we had a 6 billion dollar surplus. So rather than face the problem Governor Brown was in the middle of a reelection campaign at that time. Governor Brown and the legislature decided to send that 6 million back into the county's five billion of that surplus is a little of that surplus into a bailout program a bail out program of the city of the various cities and counties. And Ron I agree much of that was needed. We all know that some counties have even more money than they had before the passage of Prop 13. So now this year for the first time and even more so next year we're going to have to face the reality of what we've done and that is to use surplus money money that was collected from the taxpayer that should have been collected in the first place and that that

surplus money the surplus monies were used to bail out the local counties. Now we're in a position where the servant in his new district to us and as I say I agree with a lot of that. But now we're in a position where that same surplus doesn't exist and we have the same expectation on the part of the many of the counties for the for these bailout funds. So where do we go from here. Well we're going to have to. Make some compromises and we're going to have to make some tough critical choices. Do you think this legislature has the determination the will power in the the acid resolved to make the cut. I think they have. They have more than that I think they have to do it because they can't create an additional eight hundred million dollars out of thin air so I think they have no choice now but to look at it. But then they'll make the cuts. There's another question. The other part the 800 million shortfall because of the smog control legislation that had not been that what you're what you see is the immediate answer to that.

I think there will be an inspection program some kind of in the control of the federal government has mandated it so the legislators have no choice. The key is tailoring the program and I think for the most part especially in Southern California there's an extreme feeling of frustration over our air quality problem so I think there will be a ruling that's on the part of the people to cooperate with some form of a program. But then we have to find something that's realistic. Another battle is looming that may actually be in an act in the south versus the north. And I referred to the peripheral canal. For example right now I have a very liberal speaker of the assembly Willie Brown who doesn't like to provoke and we have a very liberal senator president pro tem of the Senate. They've Roberti who want the peripheral canal that typifies even within one political party the violent difference of opinion about the Pocono. And I question the number one. What do you say about it. Since it's now we're going to come up for a referendum even though it's been acted by the legislature what do you say about it. And number two what's going to happen.

Well you have to look at our total water needs for the state we cannot afford to have a north south division and there's already a move in northern California in some areas to. Split the state even as what the state and we can't we don't want to see that happen and I think that of us and statewide office have got to be in a position to try to heal this. Here's the problem the state water project was approved back I think in early 60s 1962 I believe in 1960 with the brain Support Act and the and some kind of a cross Delta facility approved at that time and can be until the problem of course is ry build the facility ride build a profile canal if we are going to have any right now Proposition 8 just passed. In November. Proposition 8 wrote into the Constitution a protection against using any of the resources the rider resources. From the rivers.

So the question is do we need a proof or can now if there isn't going to be water to bring to Southern California because it's expensive to build this canal with them whether it would come from the Sacramento River going into the delta in the San Joaquin River that other wild and scenic river you know that's correct but the scenic rivers are part of the overall state they were envisioned as part of the overall state water project at some point. The Wanted will there be enough. Roger that Northern California can do without. They can go to southern California. Have you been and what have been your posture Have you been a supporter of the profession I have always I've always believed that we need some kind of cross Delta facility. But I'm very concerned about doing something that would damage the delta area and damage the Bay Area and I think that there has to be a solution to that would not involve a north south split. Did you support the 200. Yes I did and would you now supported the continued support of the even in win this referendum coming up my position is this. While I still want to see this cross built of a city built yet well I recognize that we're going to run out of our Colorado River supply because of the 53 Supreme Court decision. I

want to rethink. And the total posture that we should take in conjunction with the legislature and and rather not we're paying too great a price. Now that Proposition 8 is attached to the passage of this mean 200 so I know you support it the 200 now you want to rethink it between now and say June of 82. Well my staff is presently analyzing what the cost will be. And again I am poor and poor sympathy with the concept of protecting the Northern Rivers I think this is a beautiful state and we have to protect it. But I also think that there are transportation systems to bring rather from rather California to southern California run that water may create problems in Northern California in the delta area for example or in the Bay Area. And may end up being in a situation where the water cannot be worth the million acre feet of water that we're going to need per year readily available without harm to another region of the state. I want to make sure that this is thought through very very carefully before I take a position

especially now that Prop 8 is locked into our Constitution based upon the passage of SB to it before the assembly of California right now is a new bill introduced by Ross Johnson of Orange County calling for a statewide election to decide the whole issue in June of 1981 rather than wait till June of 1982. That would not be called for by the referendum. You support that idea. Generally a decision on this in June will clearly the earlier we can make a decision the better we are better off we are here from Southern California standpoint if it is not going to be built. Then we need to immediately come up with another solution and there are other other facilities being discussed. And but because of the cut off from the gov the Colorado River supply which we expect by the middle of 1980 I think we need to get this decision as soon as possible so I would be supportive of. I'm not familiar directly with all the language of his bill but I would be supportive with a concept that would move up the timetable for

deciding this issue. You serve as chairman of the commission for economic development the state of California and into what we were talking about earlier about stimulating the economic growth of the state. What feeling do you have procreation the better employment opportunities through this commission. Is it a window dressing commission or is it really doing something. As you probably know the Department of Commerce was abolished by Governor Brown during the period before I took office. Originally the Economic Development Commission for the state served as the board of directors for the for the Department of Commerce. Now of course we have a board without a department to manage So we've tried to work closely with the Department of Business and transportation in the department of economic development for the state of California and I feel as though board with some very key private sector individual has been able to take a look at a number of our transportation problems and to take a look at many of the overlapping regulatory problems

and other. Tax this incentives in terms of creating jobs and I think we've made some headway. Not as much as I would like to have made but I think we've made a lot of headway. Willie Brown has a job because the number of Republican 28 Republicans gave him a vote to be there. What do you see in that. Is that a new amount of Republicans and Democrat that's going to be effective in the in the assembly. The Republicans first of all would like to elect a Republican speaker of the assembly. Yes but they can't do that if the minority party. What I'd like to see happen in 1982 in California is the same thing that happened at the national level. In this past year. I'd like to see the Republican Party pick up 7 more seats in the assembly and three more states. Three more seats in the state Senate and then I'd like to see a Republican speaker and a Republican president pro tem of the Senate. Right I think we'd be in a position if we're able to elect a Republican constitutional slate to make some of the major changes in this thing

similar to the kind of changes that I think Governor Reagan will make at the national level. Governor Brown becoming a more moderate Governor Brown in view of this election. I really can't make a judgment as to where Governor Brown will be. He has a great ability to change positions. Sometimes that's positive other times negative. But how he will remain this particular mandate from the people in difficult for me to assess a lot of people are wondering what is my career going to do when it comes to the race for governor. Do you have a very candid reflection of your position on that. Rob Durie Brown keeps leaving the state as much as he's been leaving it and the past two years I will have to run I'll just serve as acting governor I may just run of the incumbent but I think most likely I will be a candidate for governor in 1982. At a recent meeting in Los Angeles there were a number of Republican supporters headed by Mr. floor. It was stated in the press that you were very

critical of Pete Rose from them his race for governor. You want to enlarge a bit on that. No I never have intended to be critical of other Republicans in this instance regarding Mayor Wilson I think the question was directed more toward the 1978 Republican primary. Here we had a primary where Ed Davis spent a million and a half. And Ken Maddi spent a million and a half than John Briggs spent almost a million ever younger spent a couple of million. He will spend probably another million I think we end up four million and a half maybe we end up in a situation where we spent over six million dollars in a Republican primary fighting one another and in the general election of course the party was very divided. And my comments that day at that particular at the particular meeting you're mentioning my comments were not directed at any one person. And were not intended to be negative. What I was saying at this time and let's get a united Republican Party in the primary and then let's go out and win in the general election. Let's not lose by 1

million 300000 in the race for the governorship the way we did in 1978. Let's get the party together that that was really the. Concept and I was trying to get across. Of course you will have the same confrontation the time of Madrid did Megan run the world from their ropes and run them if you run. Wouldn't it be the same situation all over again. Well of course that's a hypothetical situation I am not aware that that is. I'm drinking I've been wrong not in a position to speak for other Republicans as to whether or not they will or will not run and I think there's a saying at that whoever runs should get they should coalesce the support behind that one person. If we can unite as a party behind one candidate and that would be better but we don't want to freeze anyone out in another Republican strain and then despite the fact that I may have a large name identity or I may have a large lead now in the polls over the Republican. If there is another Republican with something valuable to say and there are some very fine Republicans in this state we should not be in a position of freezing that Republicans out. But if it

does work out to where we could run in a united manner so that we can put our we can concentrate let's say in line many of the legislative races and get good candidates to run in the local legislative races so we can also win the state legislature 1982 that would be better. But it would be fair to say that you're 13 right now firmly considering running for governor. That's for sure. I just I'm not in a position to make a formal declaration because there are. Legal implications to that but but I am and I do intend to firmly announce at some point in the future for the governorship. Quick question. California now has 100000 refugees from Southeast Asia far more than any other state. Are you doing anything toward helping to get federal support for some of the financial burden that that's putting on the California riot because this is not directly in my area I know it Governor but I I have obviously been in favor of alleviating the state burden listen federal help these. They're here because of federal programs not state

programs I think they should be I think the federal government should take their responsibility and not burden our state at a time when we are 800 million at least shore on our state budget. Very quickly a few seconds left. What's your top priority for the state this year. My personal concern is the crime issue. I commented that we have to take the more decisive steps we've ever taken in roads supporting our law enforcement agencies that involve making people more aware and it involves provide help or certainly those convicted of crime and really more of a certainty of sentence. Thank you very much. Their time is up now and I want to thank you Lieutenant Governor for being with us. This has been a special broadcast for public television with Lieutenant Governor Michael of the state of California.