Debate 1978, Senate; Dick Clark And Roger Jepsen 1978 Senate Race; The IDPA Debates

Just lation on the books now as a result of the criminal code with respect to sentencing than we had when crime rate was lower. I think ultimately you're going to what we can do is certain things we can deal with Saturday Night Specials that supposedly that will solve some of the problem but I don't think that's going to get at the root of it. There are other things that are leading to it drug related problems appear to be one of the largest. There are other things that people who don't have. We know that every time the increase in the number of people and conditions that don't allow them even the minimal existence for living there is an increase in crime. So there are areas of the state there are social conditions that exist that lead to much of this as well. I think we can do something with certain legislation such as I mentioned the Saturday night special legislation but I really don't look to that to curing at all. I think we've made some improvements in our criminal code. We have a criminalistics laboratory now that we never used to have and that gives us a quicker turnaround time in cases where there have been serious crimes

committed. We have a strong DCI now that moves in very quickly and helps the local law enforcement officers. These do not stop crimes immediately but they do help as time goes on because many people engaged in serious crime know where they can commit crimes and get away with them. I would like to point out that that report that you make reference to well it said that violent crimes had an increase in this last reporting period. Overall we've had a drop and major crimes and I think that is an encouraging sign if you want to get into the philosophy of it all I think we have to realize that people need to go to work. We have very low unemployment rate in this state. We have some excellent training facilities through our area schools and through other facilities and I think we have to concentrate on getting people trained helping them get to work and making sure that they can work and will work. John Waters more question or sonal.

OK the cost of running the legislature Frank sessions and of compensating legislators is become an issue recently and reapportionment will be upon us with the 1900 census I like to ask each of you if you favor would favor at that time a reduction in the size of the legislature. MR. MR I'm willing to listen to that but I'm not ready to adopt that at this point in time. I would not be anxious to change it. We set right in the middle or on the average both in the numbers in the House and the Senate. And I think that's a pretty good place to be because we want to small enough that it's workable but we want a large enough that it can truly be representative. I would had hoped that the legislature would adopt my proposal so that we could have a commission formed to help on reapportionment not that they would preempt the legislature but they would have the work done so that we could avoid some of the partisan bickering that might well take place if the legislature starts from scratch on reapportionment going to turn to Roger one last question as a question as popular as you have become.

You are sort of an anomaly on the Republican ticket this year. You're surrounded by the Senate candidate and the kind of governor candidate by people who are very much more conservative conservative than you are and whom you made. Just like veils I guess you could say well you did not particularly want to win. Last spring. Do you have the support of the Republican Party and is that going to hurt you this fall. Roger I think I have the support of the Republican Party the full artist for me to believe that everyone would agree with me and everyone would support me. It would be nice if they did but I know that's not going to be the case but if you would look at the polls you'll find overwhelmingly Republicans are supportive and I'm very appreciative of that support. And you know third questions. Do you care to make a closing comment about a minute or so. Well I'd like to get back to one answer that I didn't have an opportunity to before the governor referred to his property tax proposal.

And the fact is that his proposal had a distinctly different to 76 legislation he referred to that Milledge question that was a distinctly different direction and as to who would receive that money and property taxes. Farmers and homeowners specifically would have had an increase in taxes the first year alone of 20 million dollars. And it wasn't just a question as you suggested governor of what we're all for getting the money back. It was a question of who is going to get the money and who had suffered at the excess at the expense of the equalization law. The school aid formula and rising market values intersection at that point in time and I was tax history and there was a fundamental difference in our approach. And I mean fundamental difference. I realize I can't take the time of everybody here to explain it but I want that point made clear that I disagreed with your direction completely and I think it was a major mistake and in public policy. Secondly. You referred to the question of the eyepiece. No and you didn't bother to tell people that I didn't get the sole endorsement as a result of that position. But

in fact they call indorsed at that time. The members of my pay said no they had not believe me to give a recommendation for a test or a promise of a tax increase and that in fact in the second interview if you would have looked at that you have noted I said pressure is off on the need for increased revenue. Now I think those are fundamentally important things that have not been pointed out. Finally closing I would like to say that I think we tend to talk about economic issues we tend to talk about material things. I think when I go around the state of Iowa that I run into something that is different and that people are concerned about those issues but I think also we should note that theyre concerned about a need almost a hunger in fact for a revival of spirit and a revival of the optimism that used to be prevalent in Iowa that in fact helped to solve the problems that we as Iowans encountered through the years not just recently but through the years. I also note that if we try to maintain status quo. You either go ahead or you go behind you can't just maintain status quo. I feel that there is a real feeling on the part of the

public that they want in fact to maintain a decent quality of life that they want in fact to have a quality of justice that they want people to be able to work together they want a stronger sense of community in a spree decor and a pride of working together rather than just trying to solve the problems for me and me alone. And I perceive that to be one of the overriding things as I go around the state of Iowa. It needs to be done and can be done with the help of all in the state of Iowa. Governor. Thank you. I guess I am appreciative that you're going to give us just a couple of moments for a closing because. I just talked about the 20 million dollars again we're talking about sending the money back on the local level. And I hope I explained adequately that we wanted the money to go back the right way. And if there were a better way we're willing to accept that. They decided they thought there was a better way. Well we weren't convinced we thought our adjustment would be better. But nonetheless it was a matter of getting the money back the real important thing

is whether you argue about 20 million dollars. It's who did what and when. We enacted a school Foundation plan that I proposed and legislature passed. They did it. After debating just about every conceivable way to finance education to lighten the load on property tax that was passed without a single Democratic vote in 1971. Then we proposed I proposed an elderly tax credit so our elderly people would be able to stay in their homes and not be taxed out of those homes because of their fixed income. And that was adopted when the Republicans controlled both houses and it is been updated year after year. We lifted welfare costs off of counties and property tax. We provided the first revenue sharing directly as a result of my proposal for cities and towns and many people who talked about eliminating the sales tax from food and drugs. But nobody had shown how that could be done without adding another tax and we were able to show that

and that was enacted and then we talk about the period when we had the windfall of money and we all wanted to put that money back and there was an argument as how it should go back. It did go back and I accepted their version even though we offered a way in which it could go back and would have even helped the renters. And then we proposed that there be some limits on spending. You might say we were a little ahead of our time because there weren't any pressures from Proposition 13 at that time. And I think Jerry voted against that at one time. He did vote I think to support our recommendation to put some limits on assessed valuation that could be taxed. Thank goodness we did it and it's going to help us a great deal. We now have shifted reliance on property taxes for schools from 56 percent down to 36 percent. That's the reason we have the record of Steve gold can research and write so favorably about you talk about progress and

you talk about that spirit. Let me tell you we proposed a coal research program in this state in 1974 to revive an industry and make this state less reliant upon outside sources for energy. We got an appropriation. It's been successful. I would electric now has signed contracts for one hundred eight million dollars for I will call. For new mines that are going to surface Joe voted against that. He voted against the energy policy because he voted against our rail branch assistance program. That's a program where we now have upgraded branch lines some 800 miles more than all other states combined. He was against the bottle and can bill apparently was willing to accept the bottle and can bill is finally passed but supported the tax version instead. These are things that we have proposed and these are things that have been adopted.

Throughout the last few years that I think are very progressive and they have put us in the forefront in this country it's that kind of stability and progress that I'd like to talk about. I would hope that people would appreciate. Thank you Governor. I think this almost concludes I'd like to do it. Resign Fitzgerald has the Pacific questions raised by Governor Ray about the record. You can handle them briefly without reason a question it would merit no response and there are very very quickly likely I can do things one branch line assistance railroad that the governor says I voted against this year he vetoed $800000. What we did in the branch line assistance railroad. Also there have been three major hits on the record anybody that wants to take the time to go up and research it. Secondly the tax increases proposed there have been approximately 50 million dollars of tax increases starting with one thousand seventy four that were actually recommended by the governor that I did not support. There have been others that he supported tax increases I'm talking about that I also supported. Both of us have

recommended or voted for tax increases in the past five years. Some of those I agreed with him on. But where there is a difference there is a 50 million dollars higher annual tax increases as a result of or recommended by the governor's program where I did not favor it. And I have not been in fact higher than the governor on tax increases I have been lower than the governor and I think that's something that bears pointing out Secondly he recently referred to the elderly and keeping them in their own homes. We started transportation programs to keep the elderly in their own homes. The governor tried to cut it in half. We started in-home services for the elderly to keep them in their own home the governor had no recommendation at all. And later accepted what we did although we complained we spent too much money and we in fact doubled the amount of property tax relief for elderly. But he is referring to that he did this year. It's not the old black and white situation where I'm against all these things he's for all these things. In fact both the transportation program that money we put in and the in-home services not only provided chances for elderly to stay in their own home.

But it actually cost save the taxpayers dollars millions of dollars because we adopted those programs. If we hadn't adopted him one they would have had to service the transportation service some people can't literally get medicine because they don't have transportation. Elderly people and in the in-home services they couldn't stay in their own home they were forced to go into nursing homes if we hadn't passed this. Now in both cases the money that we put forth in there and one of them both neither one the governor recommended and one of them he tried to cut in half the following year. The transportation program used to cost us before we did that five million state and federal money it today cost us two million dollars. We have fewer systems and we have more ridership as a result of our effort in that area in the area of in-home services today. Literally millions of dollars are saved to the taxpayers because if we can provide those in-home services and allow the elderly to stay in their own home with dignity as many of them want and we have a very high average of nursing home patients and part of the elderly that literally saves millions of dollars to the taxpayers also because Title 19 costs

literally are skyrocketing and are far in excess of what the in-home services cost and less provision of service. Thank you I'm glad we didn't raise questions that might require a response from you. It's going to tax obviously you don't see everything just to what is going to taxing time we've talked about taxes we've taxes paid your patients and we thank you for your indulgence the next meeting that I'm aware of of the governor representing fits your will be at a joint appearance sponsored by The Des Moines chapter of the society professional a professional journalist so you can talk to Clyde. We thank you both for your patience and your contributions to today's sessions. Thank you. Campaign 78 the I would that we press association debate were

recorded in the entirety Saturday September 9th 1978. This has been an eye PBS public affairs presentation.