Washington Straight Talk; Ronald Reagan

[music] [music] Ronald Reagan, Governor of California, leading conservative voice in the Republican Party, on Washington Straight Talk. Tonight, in San Francisco, Governor Ronald Reagan is interviewed by NPACT correspondent Paul Duke. Governor, we have a boiling new controversy in Washington involving one of your old colleagues, the former Governor of New York, Nelson Rockefeller. On the basis of what we now know, do you think that nomination for Vice President should be confirmed or rejected? Well, I hate to comment on that because this is still before the committees who are hearing it. I don't know what their findings all have been. I know no more than what I've read in the press. I would hope that they would find that he could be confirmed.

I would hope that they would find there has been no wrongdoing. It's impossible for me to believe that Nelson would ever intentionally do anything wrong or dishonest. I don't think he has. It seems to be the question is regarding generosity on his part, but I would rather leave this to the committees because, I say, it's like trying to comment on a trial when the trial is still going on. Are you disturbed by any of the disclosures? Well, no, I can't say that I actually am. I guess I have, I must confess, left this in the hands of the committees and gone about my own business. Should the nomination be withdrawn or rejected by Congress, would you be interested in the Vice Presidential nomination? I have felt ever since this necessity to a point came along, and when it first came along under the previous president,

that, under the circumstances, you'd have to look at it, if you were asked, it were a call to duty, and I wouldn't know anyone who could refuse. I have never sought that position in matter of fact. But you would be available. As I say, I think anyone would have to say, you would have to accept if you were asked. I would never have left a finger to bring it about. It's hardly a secret, Governor, that many conservatives opposed the nomination of Mr. Rockefeller to be Vice President in the first place. And they cite that nomination along with some other appointments of Mr. Ford and other actions by President Ford as signifying what they regard as a drift to the left by the new Republican administration. Do you think there has been a movement to the left by Mr. Ford and his administration? I think it's far too early to say that there's any stamp on this administration at all.

I think a great many people are being a little impatient, when you stop to think that the man has only been in office about two months. But he's been in office two months in a different way than any other president in our past. Most presidents have been elected several months before they take office, longer than he has been in office, with time to put together an administration and then come into office with continuing to put the administration together. Here is a case of a man who simply, instantly, overnight, became a president and is still in the process of organizing an administration. I think the fact that he has made very positive moves with regard to the fight against inflation indicate that, at the same time he's building the house, he's going ahead with the things, the purposes that have to be served. But you said recently, Governor, that there was a clear mandate in the 1972 election,

a mandate for no more taxes for four years and for reducing the size and the scope of the government. Do you think, based upon what he has done thus far, that Mr. Ford is keeping that mandate? Well, I have disagreed with him and urged him in a message not to make a part of his inflation program, the increase in taxes. I feel philosophically very strong that increasing taxes is not the way you fight inflation. On the other hand, I am in full support of the proposals that he has made for the reduction of the size of the federal government, for reducing the cost, for balancing the budget, and also for his appeal -- and I hope and pray that Congress will heed it -- his appeal to review all the regulatory agencies and the legislation, which in any way is hampering business and industry from expanding, from increasing production, and from actually lowering prices, and to wherever possible,

remove those restrictions, because I think one of the most important parts of the fight against inflation must be to increase the goods and services available to the people. But, Governor, what about those agencies, those regulatory agencies, which have been charged by some critics with protecting business and artificially keeping prices high? Now, would you do something about those agencies? Well, if any of them have-- this is always a danger with the regulatory agency. Would you abolish some of the regulatory agencies, for example? I think many should be reviewed. I have said publicly that, for example, I have not been able to make a case for the continued preservation of the Interstate Commerce Commission. All of them should be reviewed, and all should be reviewed constantly and periodically. An agency might come into existence in some time of emergency, but government has a way of preserving those agencies long after the emergency that brought about their creation is gone.

The classic case that's used so often to illustrate this was the Spruce Products Corporation, that was brought into existence in World War I to buy spruce wood for airplane fuselages. Well, it was still in existence when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. As a matter of fact, it didn't go out of existence until after World War II. Now, I don't think we have to point out to even the smallest child anymore that we were not using spruce wood in airplane fuselages. But you could say this about a number of others. I've used the term that a government agency once created is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth. And so they should be, and I know in the state of California, we've constantly been doing it. I think there is always a tendency in a regulatory agency to, a danger that it can find itself protecting the profession or the industry, whatever it may be, when its original purpose was to protect the consumer. But I think also, and even worse than that, and far greater danger,

is the tendency on the part of government with the best of intentions, the permanent structure of government. Well, we call it bureaucracy, and some use that as an epithet. But they work with their particular function, and they say to themselves, how much more we could do if we had a little more power and a little more budget. And, gradually, they overlook the fact that they shouldn't be doing that much more for the public in many instances, that they are setting precedents in which government now has a bigger hand than it was ever intended to have over the individual, over his freedom, or over any organization's freedom. And, to that extent, I think it is safe to say that, in this free enterprise nation, industry and business in America is regulated more than in any other nation in the world where private enterprise still exists, obviously not more regulated than in the socialist and communist nations. But, in those nations where there is still free enterprise,

strangely enough, they are not regulated at the extent that ours are. Governor, since you oppose Mr. Ford's proposal for a 5% surtax, how would you deal with the enormous economic problems which we had today? Well, the main economic problem, of course, is inflation. As I say, I subscribe to his proposals about reducing the size and the cost of government. And, when anyone says it cannot be reduced, they're just blowing smoke. Specifically, how would you do it? Well, again, every department has to be reviewed. First of all, I think that you could approach with a rather heavy scalpel. Any business knows that, over a period of time, administrative overhead and fat creep in. This is true in spades in government.

Government is not bound by the profit motive. Government down through the years has not had to increase its productivity. Government can just add whatever it needs and send the bill to the people. And it has done this. But how would you apply the scalpel, Governor? Would you apply it across the board to all agencies, to the defense budget? Well, I think there's fat in that. I am one who wants a strong defense, and I do not agree with those people that think we don't need any and who would cut the defense budget willy-nilly just because they don't think it's necessary. I think that the United States must remain the strongest nation in the world. But, even so, yes, there's fat in that. And I think it requires the cooperation of Congress. I think that Congress must be willing to see appointees in administrative positions who come in as a man would come in as the head of a new business and wants to do this and not put up the fight they do to preserve the bureaucracy

and to not let anything change in those departments. I believe that every program should be reviewed to see whether it is, whether that program itself is needed. One of the fights against... I believe that in personnel -- without massive layoffs -- I believe there are far too many public employees. And they have crept up in increased numbers. I think you can do that as we did it in California. You put a freeze on hiring replacements and, by attrition, you reduce government down to the point at which you say, to reduce it any further would impair efficiency. Now, I'll be leaving office after eight years in California. When I came in, the number of state employees was increasing two and a half times as fast as the increase in population in our state. And yet the increase in population was being used as the excuse for the growth of government. Well, when we leave our administration,

we'll have virtually the same number of employees we had eight years ago when we started. And, in some departments, because of our growth, they have absorbed as much as a 66 percent workload increase and are turning out the job in less than half the time they did eight years ago. Now, this in business would be taken as an increase in the productivity of the department, of the workers. It can be done. The federal government, we know that in the first term of the Dwight Eisenhower, he reduced the number of federal employees by 10 percent. And... Well, Governor, since you put such great emphasis on holding down federal spending and reducing the size of the federal government, let me ask you, would you cut back unemployment compensation to those who are being laid off? Would you reduce Medicare? Would you reduce Social Security? Would you reduce those social welfare programs which help those who are caught in unfortunate economic circumstances? No, and I'm glad you asked in this, because one of the things,

if you're going to lick inflation, you have to accept that there is going to be temporarily an economic dislocation and increased unemployment. And I quarrel very much with some of the labor leaders today who are saying this is absolutely unacceptable. But, at the same time, I say that what the President has suggested is right, that you, if anything, are willing to extend unemployment insurance, to do everything you can to minimize the hardship on those people who temporarily will be victims in this fight against inflation. Now, the reason that you must take that dislocation to fight inflation is because the calamity, if we don't lick inflation, that will come a few years down the road, if not sooner, is far worse than this temporary problem. No, I would say that you add to that, you extend it, you do what you can to ease that particular problem. When you get to the social reform programs, no. You do not shirk what you should do right today in many areas,

the recipients of many of our social welfare programs are themselves being cheated as are the taxpayers, because the amount of money available is being shared and spread too widely among people who don't deserve it. And here we can speak with authority in California, because we reformed welfare three and a half years ago. Our caseload was going up 40,000 a month in California. We had quite a battle to get our reforms implemented. We had court cases. We had legislative obstruction. We had HEW in Washington refusing to grant various waivers. But when I tell you that we discovered for ourselves that no one in the United States knew how many people were on welfare, they only knew how many checks they were sending out. And there was no way really to check and find out how many individuals were getting more than one check. Right now, Bob Carlson, who was a part of our welfare reforms here and who now is the welfare director in Washington,

has estimated that, in aid to dependent children nationally, more than 10 percent of the recipients are absolutely ineligible for the program. Another 23 percent -- so now you're talking the full third -- are being overpaid. In other words, these are people who have some outside income, but they're misstating it. The first check we ran in California, a computer check of the stated earnings of a welfare recipient who also had outside income, as against what he actually was earning, when we finally received permission -- we were denied by regulations the right to check on a word. When you pay your income tax, you have to prove, and they check with your employer's statement that your earnings are stated correctly. But the welfare recipient could come in and tell you what his financial situation was and, by regulations, the workers were forced to take his word for it. And we found, in the first check we ran, 41 percent of the people were falsely stating the amount of their outside earnings.

Now, today, three and a half years later, we're not increasing 40,000 a month. We have almost 400,000 fewer people on welfare in California. And, yet, in addition to helping the taxpayers make the program more efficient, we have been able to increase the grants to the truly needy, who must have our help, by 41 percent. And this now is being done at the federal level, state by state, under Bob Carlson. And, last year, for the first time in 20 years, the budget for aid for dependent children nationally was smaller than it had been, a budgeted request, and there was a decline of about 300,000 in welfare nationwide, which means, in some states where they haven't instituted these new reforms, it's still going up. Governor, if the American economy still is in bad shape in 1976, will President Ford be vulnerable? And is it possible that he'll be challenged

for the Republican presidential nomination by someone from the conservative flank, say, a Ronald Reagan? Well, or why not say, or someone from the liberal flank? I think that's a question that can't be answered. I would hope and pray that we know the answer. I would think that all of us would hope and pray that the administration would be so successful that there would be no question about '76, because that would mean that we were solving the problems of inflation and these other things that beset us. I think this is what's going to happen, and no one can predict whether an administration is going to solve the problems and whether the people or whether the people are going to want a change. And, I just, I couldn't hazard an answer to your question there. If there is a failure, if things have grown worse instead of better, well then I'm quite sure that, yes, then there would be challenges. And would there be a challenge from you? This is a question that I've been fending off

for about two years, and I almost feel like an "I told you so," for long before President Ford became President, when it was an open race for '76, I was one of those names that always appeared in the polls, I know, and I was constantly asked. And I constantly answered that it was far too early to make any decision or even to face the possibility of having to make a decision, because circumstances had a way of changing the cast of characters over a period of time. Well, we've had one of those circumstances now that did change the cast of characters. I would think, no, let me, I'll complete the answer here. It's just this: I have never been able to conceive of anyone saying, I want to be President of the United States and setting out, from ground zero, to achieve that position. I think the people tell you whether you should be a nominee or not or whether you should consider it or not. And so I have no way of answering that. But it does go beyond that, Governor,

because there are some telltale signs. You've been campaigning across the country for other Republicans this fall, obviously making new friendships. Your aids suggest to reporters in private conversations that Mr. Ford may step down because of Mrs. Ford's health in 1976. Those are not my aids. I keep reading-- Well, yes they do. You, I keep reading this in the eastern press. I read it in the western press, too. Well, I read a great deal that I find fiction also with regard to my administration. No, they know how I feel. There hasn't been any of this. The press is constantly speculating because President Ford had made a stand that he would not seek re-election beyond his present term as a congressman, and it was supposed to hinge on Mrs. Ford's desires. This speculation still goes on. I know no more about that than anyone else does. But isn't it true governor that, in recent weeks, you have become the rallying figure for much of the conservative discontent

which has been building up against Mr. Ford. And aren't people talking about you as a possible challenger to Mr. Ford in 1976? And don't you have to acknowledge that? I'm sure there must be some conversation or there wouldn't be this speculation in the press about it. But when you say that I'm going across the country to make new friends, I'd like you to hark back to the record. irst of all, I campaigned across this country before I was Governor, for Republican causes and Republican candidates. And that's what led to a request that I seek this office, at a time when I had never aspired to public office and did not want public office. Since I have been governor, if you will check back in the record, I have traveled across this country. I happen to believe that you have an obligation, if you believe in certain principles, and I believe in the principles our party has espoused, that you do your best to try and make it become the majority party instead of the minority party. I went to the Congressional Campaign Committee.

I told them that I would be available for a certain amount of time out of the state to help. Governors were being asked this at the Governor's Conference, the Republican Governor's Conference, to do this. I told them my first priority, of course, was California. And I'm making three five-day trips throughout the country on where they have told me I could be of the most benefit, the most help. This is the extent of my out-of-state campaigning, but it is nothing new. I've done far more than this in the past. Well, granted that that's true, Governor, there is something else, too. And that is that some of your supporters are talking increasingly about a third party indicating they've given up on the Republican Party. And Kevin Phillips, who is one of the architects of conservative philosophy, suggests that an independent conservative party may be an idea whose time has now come. And he and others look to you for leadership in this.

Is it possible that you will lead a third party movement in 1976? Well, again, you get into an area of... Well, let's say you're not ruling it out. Would that be a fair assumption? No, because for me to answer your question that way, I think would give a false impression. Just recently, a few days ago, I had a press conference in Sacramento, and the press weren't very hungry that day. They didn't have any sharp questions on particular items, and they degenerated into a kind of 30-minute rap session on the whole hypothesis of, have we come to one of those moments in history where there is a realignment of the parties and so forth. And simply by joining in, and hypothesizing with them, I found myself quoted in the press as virtually creating a third party. No, I've heard the talk, and I read the columns like Kevin Phillips and all, and you find yourself asking, in a time when, perhaps due to the Watergate situation,

there is an apathy and a mistrust of things political of both parties. This, I think, is the most widespread thing in the country, is that out of all of these last two years of turmoil has come a situation of both Democrats and Republicans sitting home. That's my understanding. Only 26 percent of the Democrats turned out in the state of New York for the primary for the United States Senate. Now, I know that a great many Republicans are just sitting on their hands. I'm trying to stir that up and tell them that there's no way that you can be uninvolved, that, if you sit home, you're letting someone else decide who's going to run your life for you. But this could be taken as, do we mean that this is the time, when out of this will maybe come a realignment that will revive people's interest in the party system? I would hope, my own belief, and I'm trying my best with the campaigning I'm doing, to revive interest in the two existing parties. And when I talk

of the mandate that I believe is imposed on government and on this administration, I am reciting back the mandate the people gave in the 1972 election, philosophically. Never, do I believe, the issues have been as clear cut as they were in the '72 election. There were two philosophical choices there, and the people overwhelmingly rejected this one and chose this one. And what I am pointing out to my fellow Republicans, and hopefully to Democrats and independents who will listen, is that that mandate is still in effect. The people said there were certain things they wanted of government. And the Republican Party was the party that expressed that philosophy. But that goes to the point, Governor, if that mandate is violated in your eyes, would you then lead a third party movement in 1976? Whether I would lead the movement, or whether I would join in support of such a movement, I think, would have to depend on whether it became evident that both parties had so far failed that they no longer could represent

the will of the American people. In other words, you're not closing the door to the possibility. I am saying that such a possibility would exist under those circumstances. I am hoping it won't be necessary. Governor, let me ask you about your fellow Californian, Richard Nixon. Do you think Mr. Nixon can serve any useful role to the country now that he's been disgraced and removed from office? Well, only time will tell. On that, I have said many times, I think history is going to be much kinder to him than the present situation has been because you cannot take away the accomplishments, particularly in the international field, which was his forte and his greatest interest. I know that I did several errands of the State Department abroad. I know that in Europe, heads of state of seven different European nations told me that they could not recall anyone in this last half century

who had such a plan for peace and was going at it as intelligently and is calculatingly, and that the world was closer to peace than at any time in this half century. And there's no question his opening up the doors to China, the easing of the tension there, the easing of the tension with the Soviet Union, and at the same time, not doing it in the foolish way that was done in the Yalta conferences and the previous conferences under our opponents. When they really, if the Russians smiled, they rolled over and wanted their tummy scratched and said, oh, everything's all right, there'll never be any trouble. Here was a man that recognized that there are just absolutely irreconcilable differences in philosophy. Do you think he could be a roving ambassador now? As I say, this will depend on time, because, right at the moment,

no, I think that the people would not accept his participation. But, as I say, with time and the perspective of time, maybe we'll find that they will recognize and begin to recall the accomplishments. Thank you very much, Governor. I have an idea that, third party or not, we have not heard the last of Governor Reagan. Well, you said that. Thank you. Washington Straight Talk. Tonight in San Francisco, NPACT has brought you California Governor, Ronald Reagan, with NPACT correspondent Paul Duke. [warbling synthesizer music] Production funding provided by public television stations,

the Ford Foundation, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This has been a production of NPACT, a division of GWETA. [synthesizer sounds]