Voter's Pipeline; The Changing Face of Television
Channel 50 now presents this special one hour program entitled The changing face of TV. It will explore the dramatic changes being brought about by the explosive growth of cable television since 1975. Cable television has boomed from neighborhood cable hookups to a national satellite distributed TV system now serving 16 million American homes. Our public affairs special examines this question today. Now here's your host Jim Cooper. Network television is only about 30 years old. Cable television has been around almost as long. But up to about five years ago all it offered was the relaying of broadcast TV signals by cable into the homes of fringe area viewers. In 1975 satellite technology was introduced to the cable industry cable TV systems could then appeal to mass audiences all over the country. The mass market made possible the funding for cable companies to offer their own programming on TV instead of repeating what broadcast stations were offering. The result is a whole new series of
specialized networks that now reach one third of all TV viewers in the nation. They're going to be talking about this with three guests and we're going to talk about it with appearances of three specialized programmers of cable companies in addition. Greg Liptak is senior vice president of times mirror cable television. He's been a cable TV executive for 13 years and prior to that was a news director for a network television station. He's the founder and first president of the National Cable Television Association of marketing. Jeff Greenfield booth is west coast editor for TVC magazine one of the nation's largest magazine dealing with cable television. She also produced the first national pay-TV seminar attended by over five hundred Hollywood producers last December. She taught the first cable TV course at UCLA Extension entitled cable television a threat or a promise. Pam Wilson is a division marketing manager a Western operations for Cox cable communications Incorporated. She was formerly the director of advertising for Mission cable the largest single system in the country with 185 thousand subscribers that rights
correct and Pam had just been elected president of the women in cable national organization and I should tell our viewers that all four of the women on this program are members of a professional group. For those women who are in positions and cable television we should tell our viewers that there are several ways in which you can pay for cable first and basic services $8 or $9 or $10 a month and that can get you in the ballgame if you want to call it that with cable. Then there's another option to get premium service which perhaps is another $10 a month. You get different arguments in programming for that and sometimes there is still another tier that could be called the second tier up which is maybe two premium services. So the ultimate could be two or more services in addition to the basic rate and could cost you about $30 a month. So I'm going to ask our first question. I'd like to have our guest discuss is this all good or is it all bad this business of paying for what you used to get by turning on the set
free who wants to start with that. Well Jim I'll take a stab at it. I come from a very prejudiced point of view I think it's it's yes it is worthwhile. The way the cable industry is now developing GM would indicate that we're offering different levels of service. We would offer for example a basic cable television package as you indicated the neighborhood of eight or nine dollars a month and that would include local signals that would be delivered in better technical quality generally that people could get off the air just out of town stations and other special cable exclusive services. Then on top of that as you indicated there are the pay services and one service could be a family service that includes g n g rated movies. If a family chooses just to offer that service to its family where there could be then the full blown services of Home Box Office Showtime the movie channel etc.. And I think the trend would be that we are going to continue developing more specialized services and
packaging them to fulfill different viewer tastes specific tastes specific view or Kenichi out of the Fuller Brush company of cable. Cable may be you know with a lot of different options. The people that like the movie options are going to have those sports options etc.. Exactly. Jim you mentioned. Are people going to be willing to pay for something they used to get. I don't think they used to get by turning on their television set. You know it's you all in the family that have gotten what cable is now offering today. We are taking what used to be well network television a very broad appeal programming that can reach the mass audience. Now we're taking segments of that for gaming and specializing in sometimes offering as much as 12 hours a day of that same type of programming. So it's not something that they can get on. You're saying you're giving them more frosting on the cake if you call the court the television cake more frosting on a it has to be good. When people begin to pay attention to what they can in fact offer other people what I've been seeing is something of the blue sky that we used to have
before. But in a different way at a recent conference of the Society for cable television engineers I was at first appalled when they talked about 100 channels into the home. Who wants 100 channels. And they tried to. Good question. Well they tried to equate that with a magazine stand. So I asked but nobody goes out and buys the hundreds of magazines there. But then we got into the refinement and maybe one day they said there wouldn't be a hundred channels that you could switch on in the home. But somewhere out there there would be a hub and you would know the hundred channels they might be learning how to play bridge it might be learning how to speak French or whatever. You would simply pick up your telephone. One technology that aids another and you would call and ask for that particular channel and you will get it. Now that makes sense and it is actually being experimented with in Canada right now. That's a very interesting thing. Let me pick up on that State of the art thing. We were we've been discussing about what
the state of the art is here in this area. We are at getting a new system very soon which will offer every subscriber thirty six channels. And I understand the state of the art now moved up to 52 channels. And the ones coming online in the next six months to a year and there's been an even discussion of moving up to 125 channels. So Mike one question that occurs to me is that in this area particularly we happen to be in the Los Angeles market area which already has 17 television signals coming in to everybody what diversity are you offering that goes beyond that seemingly abundant choice that comes from 17 different signals already on broadcast TV. Jim there's a tremendous amount of diversity that cable television operators in certainly the most difficult television market in America are offering their subscribers that diversity would include distance independent TV stations the so-called superstations from Chicago Atlanta New York City.
There there's a time diversity in other words were three hours earlier so there's different programming schedules that would appeal to different groups of people. And a lot of additional sports in the marketplace right in the marketplace. We have a children's channel. We have some We'll have an early June national 24 hour video news service and on and on our sports channel etc. so it isn't just more of the same. It's a lot more is the secret is the secret of all of this that we're talking about diversity is diversity what they're buying diversity of programming freedom of choice and being able to watch television and have said what they want to watch. I was just looking here Jim there's a list of 35 sources of programming already on the satellite available to cable operators. And then the cable operator himself or herself can decide what they're going to buy and what they're going to tailor to that specific line to them. Another point that's very simple and we ought not to pass by too quickly.
There are many places where you can get for example this station or other stations that are UHF not VHF and that means that the public broadcasting stations who by the way are very often confused with cable television in the minds of the public. They are then extended KCET in Los Angeles for example. Now it gets to ninety three different places and they insist that they're very grateful to cable television. And I would assume that KLC is also grateful that cable. I could tell and share with our viewing audience that the very this very program that they are now watching from our little local station here from which this is emanating goes to 16 different cable services reaching 200000 homes throughout Southern California. Something again that would not have happened even five years ago. Let's pick up on something you just mentioned and that has to do with superstations. One of the most interesting developments as alternative TV programming is the birth of the so-called
superstations the Superstation concept was initiated by Ted Turner owner of WCBS TV in Atlanta Georgia in 1975 Superstation is simply a local gas station which uses a satellite 23000 miles over the equator to send its broadcast signal to cable companies all over the country. Here are some examples. On January 20th 1975 the nation's three alternative network television was a man who became a reality as America's first major TV Madingley major course of television. Here. Is what makes channel 17 a super station the television signal from Atlanta takes a 22000 mile trip through space. Bouncing off R-CA SatCom satellite and flashing 22000 miles back to work where it's received by a douche like antenna and transmitted by cable to a television viewers all in a fifth of a second.
Yes Gigi is the station that offers for viewers and sponsors television as you like see it on only on Channel Nine. In the world. On the ice or on the court all winter long only w o RGV has the hometown paper the Islanders the Knicks the Rangers in the winter. They always thought.
We should tell our viewers because of the magic of satellites 23000 miles over the equator. Station in Atlanta can suddenly become a station in compassing the entire country. It's almost like instant network. So what about that. Is this good or is this bad what you just seen the Superstation idea. Well I must tell you that I live on cable because I couldn't get any television reception if I didn't have a cable system attached to my set and I have a converter. And I when I sit down to watch television I flip through all of these things and I love the Atlanta station when they have the old movies on and they have movies there that are older than anything you see. Well I was going to say know that but couldn't you see old movies on Channel Nine not to leave my son out on Channel 11 Channel 13 right here in L.A.. Not really. And of course if you're so inclined. Very religious stations that come in and fall for us. I have to confess I flip through them quickly. But we had a
specialized day of one that comes to Dubai and they're fascinating. And then you have a local origination channel. Also what I'm really saying is that because you have superstations you are now making use of some of the things that the cable systems gave you before with nothing on them. There are educational settings on too. I'm talking about the converter that actually has 36 channels on and yes it is. And what a bewildering what a dazzling choice that you have. Thirty six channels of course according to the Nielsen report the average television set in America now with 80 million television households the average American television set is in the on position 48 hours a week. Does the advent of all these cable diversities mean that the human psyche is going to have to expand to more than 48 hours a week in the on position with his or her television set. I mean where is the limits. I think it's going to be more in the nature of people being more selective about what they
watch. Don't you feel that some of the research indicates that people just almost passively use television just before the receipt like it was some sort of an anesthetic go on. How are you enjoying it. But here now with all of these choices most of them are commercial free and by the way that's a point we haven't brought up. One of the great things about cable is that many of our channels pay channels have no commercials and all of our research would indicate that that's almost at the top of the list. Why the American people are buying cable in such great numbers. One of the things that you can get on the station obviously that is the Atlanta Braves now if this program is going to let's say someone in New Jersey or someone who may see this very program in Chicago what does that person care about the Atlanta Braves performances. There seems to be. What about the sports enthusiast has an insatiable appetite for sports and it doesn't seem to matter where it comes from. When you sell a cable when any of the three that are directed to all of you because I know there's exhaustive research that goes into marketing and cable What is the biggest
argument that you have found persuade someone to become a cable basic service user. What motivates them to do that. To become a subscriber. Yes. Many of our markets we find that reception is such that they practically need cable service in order to watch television that is one of the primary reasons why people subscribe to basic cable service. What about you Greg is there any can you generalize on that as to what is the biggest motivating or selling point to motivate someone. Jim I think the reception is near the top of the list but depending upon the market it often will be choice the selection the diversity of the programming. One thing that I think everybody is finding now is that even people who get good reception are willing to pay something to get their own kind of programming in the evening. That was the biggest astonishment to me when on TV over the pay television and select television and the rest of them began to do very very well.
And they're doing it in pursuit of what you said. Diversity people wanting the sport wanting the movies and they're willing to pay for only like four hours a night on one channel and they will pay that kind of money. So what about this one we've just seen for example which also offers you Sanford and Son it offers you get smart. These are old hole. Maybe you could pick up oldies but goodies. But they are pretty old. And yet how can they continue to market this superstations and find people that will watch them well from the perspective of the cable viewer many of the all off network series are very popular. I'm persuaded that really old series like Leave It to Beaver with a whole new generation or one of these days. They love it. So there is some value in the old off network programs but the real value of the Superstation in my opinion is the time diversity is the additional motion picture product and the additional sports and specials that these out of town stations would offer that you can get it anywhere else.
Yes. Up to now the major networks CBS NBC ABC have sort of said that cable is kind of small and maybe it'll go away if you don't talk too much about it. Well cable hasn't gone away. The station we just saw WCBS now has six and a half million people who see that one little station in Atlanta because the super station I guess the combination of the super station concept plus the magic of that satellite that can bounce signals all over the United States. What about that. Are we going to see more superstations coming down line. Is that concept here to stay or is it a flash in the pan. Well you know in Los Angeles KGTV considers that it is an unwilling Superstation and I'm not sure but that once we have all these extra services like Nickelodeon Galavis and special sports network news network that you really are going to have these generalized stations because of what you have said. I think in some instances it's been
thrown in as an extent to the basic cable person who pays nothing more for it and that in a funny way wouldn't you say that this lends status to the person who has it that they like to feel they're getting something like a status symbol. Yes. So let's talk about this specialized program you know a bit further most broadcast television up to now has been a mix of entertainment news sports or public affairs programs. Now we're seeing entire networks of cable devoted to one special audience segment. There are now 30 specialized programming services available by satellite to subscribers. There are now 24 hour a day network for sports or for usually for Spanish speaking people for senior black or for general public service. Here are some. Examples.
Which will be on probably all their own. Well this is the main studio I've been in television for a long while and a lot of exciting things happen in the studio but I've always thought the studios don't look that exciting to the camera sitting around cables all over the floor. We have ladders in the background which they go up and arrange the lights. But it is here as you can see behind me. We originate our sports center. That's our daily coverage of all the things that are going on in the world of sports all around the world. We think it is an excellent show on the weekends. ESPN brings you round the clock sports coverage during the rest of the week. We average about 12 hours a day of programming. Eventually we'll be broadcasting 24 hours a day seven days a week. For at a center for our.
First. Three and one half million cable homes will receive a third dimension choti new TVs first worldwide 24 hour live news and information service. From Turner Broadcasting System. Introducing a cable news network. Hellene Landru vice president of Center America satellite network over 50 specialized cable television networks. She was formerly the west coast media director for the National Council on Aging. The network she represents specializes in program programming for those who are over 50 and she also was a member of women in cable. What about that. Tell us about what you do and why it's important. I mean it's very important I believe because to begin with we're the only company that's offering programming specifically oriented to the 50 plus audience that 50 plus audience is now possibly the
largest minority in the United States and heretofore no one has seen fit to program for this particular audience that particular audience also. Has the largest disposable income 25 percent more than that vaunted 18 to 49 group that we constantly have heard of that in that group this group my group has also been disenfranchised I believe in prior programming because again that vaunted 18 to 49 18 to 39 whichever demographic you wish to use all programs have been oriented to that group. Therefore the older segment of our population which as I say is the largest minority in the United States has not had the opportunity to make themselves known or make their desires known by a wish. What kinds of programming they would wish to see. What about the fact that we already have 17 television
signals in this area and many of these signals addressed themselves to over 50. How then do you intend to compete with those and persuade cable entities to carry your service in many ways those programs services that you are mentioning perhaps devote one hour one half hour. They are easy for example on one half hour devote that much time per day. Sometimes it's only per week. We will have in the beginning IMAX a minimum of eight hours per day. You voted specifically to the issues the kinds of entertainment the programs that this audience would like to see and well be a part of. We will spend a great deal of our time polling are recipients of our programming determining exactly what they do wish to see and we will we will engineer programs to those
specific needs. Helaine Yes although I am of the over 50 audience and very pleased to be able to say so publicly. What I am interested in basically and I'm very sympathetic to what you're doing is why should I or people like me have any kind of special programming. I don't really have that mean now. If it were services that you are providing. Yes I see that. But I'm a little concerned about what you will use as your criterion for deciding which entertainment programs you want to give to people who are run not by interest but purely by chronological age. Yes well that seems there's a wide diversity of the 56 million Americans who are over 50. Some are scholars some are athletes some are low education levels some are higher education level. How do you generalize them. You really can't generalize. All you can do is hope that you will be able to
program it so that you will. Interest a greater number of people. We will offer a complete mix of programming. What proportion will be service programs and service I'm sure tired for people who because of their age have time on their hands or have maybe medically health related information they'd like. But if I'm speaking when you say service program me in my mind it has a different connotation perhaps than it does in yours. Right. I think of service programming as being sort of how to. Enjoy your time to enjoy your financial planning. Right. You know that's your plan right. Yes I will think of that. Oh yes absolutely. I I'm working right now as a matter of fact with a gentleman who has long been known in this field for retirement planning and financial planning what I'm talking and developing a program specifically around his expertise. Now what percent of our programming will be on that of that nature will probably have
a mix of around 60 40 going in 60 percent will be devoted to some extent that kind of programming and the 40 percent to pure entertainment. As a matter of fact I did break it down before I came here and perhaps I could give you some of the types of programming that might. These are general overall subjects subject headings that might give you a better idea. For instance there will be news programs. I'm working as a matter of fact specifically on the development of a news program that will encompass those specific news items that are of interest to the 50 plus the 45 plus that emanate from Washington. And that will be our own program and nothing to do with with Mr. Turner we have news we have religious perspectives women's programming retirement options financial planning social security information and that when we're working very closely with government sources on that when
there'll be a Medicare mailbag documentaries employment opportunities interviews hobbies for fun and profit travel opportunities continuing education do it yourself. That could be gardening that could be repairs. For instance another show that I'm very actively developing as many older people have a great deal of difficulty in pursuing their hobbies in the traditional manner that they had pursued them for instance. Ladies who do do needlepoint. Well I've discovered a lady who has developed an alternative way of accomplishing just the same thing at the same needlepoint will be accomplished. But the specifics of how to do it have now then I geared toward that person who maybe is crippled by arthritis or who is a slower alternative needlepoint. I'll turn out to renting it out too. Yeah that's.
I'd like to ask Greg as a as a person who might be involved in that. What would you do to make a decision for example to put this or not put it on Times Mirror system. What kind of mechanics would your company go through. We'd have to be convinced as we are in the value of the program service we would have to know and believe that there is a portion of the audience who would be interested in it but mechanically what would you do to decide whether the people who are your subscribers want it or don't want what would you go through. Well we we might as we have a number of services. We've actually done surveys where customers mail surveys telephone surveys. We've hired some professional marketing organizations to try to valuably force and you're betting if you want to put this into a betting parlance you're betting that people 56 million Americans who are over 50 are betting that they would have an interest in eight solid hours of the over 50. That doesn't scare you. No it doesn't scare me in the slightest. I don't believe that anyone's going to sit down for eight hours
and watch a television set. I mean we know that that doesn't happen. Generally speaking one hour two hours three hours we will be structuring it line the traditional lines of pay TV. That means that there will be repeats throughout the month of a particular show so that if you couldn't watch it at 1:00 in the afternoon you might be able to be home to catch it at five o'clock in the afternoon or something. When you turn the switch on and when you in business. September 1st I'm going to throw that switch right. Smash a bottle of champagne over it and over 50 bottles of champagne that I've been cultivating in my fridge at home. Good luck to you. Thank you. Another area of specialization coming about through cable television is the possibility for entire family to see first run movies in their homes. It could change recreational habits for millions of Americans for extra fees on cable services TV viewers already have wide choices for movie viewing instead of old reruns.
Many cable services now offer first run film and in addition top Broadway plays and popular modern musical specials by big name stars of stage country western rock and popular music. There's even a pay-TV service for entertainment completely in the Spanish language on December 1st. We began running movies 24 hours a day every day. We this year on the movie channel. We've shown top feature films like an unmarried woman. Goodbye Girl Midnight Express the China Syndrome. Crowning achievement of.
New York's biggest splashy as musical extravaganza comes to Showtime live at Radio City Music Hall on. Showtime presents a New York summer a sizzling salute to summer in the City featuring a world famous high kicking rock and. The Doobie Brothers. You. Need me. To. Do the. Job. You obviously don't believe
me. YUM YUM YUM YUM YUM YUM YUM YUM. You. Do. Not feel special. I can see our bodies. We don't need any.
Jennifer the show is the West Coast Regional Manager forget vision a pay cable network entirely to Spanish speaking viewers. Prior to this she worked in the division of the Spanish international network called Magna Verde where she was director of business development. And I see that you have your own little publications television monthly. Tell us about what you do and why it's important. All right. I'd be glad to Galveston is a Spanish language pay-TV service and what it represents is the first alternative in programming for more than 20 million Hispanics living in the United States today. Not very many people are aware of the fact that the United States is one of the largest Spanish speaking countries in the world. And what we provide people is alternative in programming we've been talking earlier about the various English services that are available and many networks and local stations and so forth. And historically there have not been very many stations available to the Hispanics in this country.
Spanish international network of course has a network of Spanish speaking stations which is a network in the sense of. Programs with the commercials and so forth a regular network format. Television represents a different kind of programming in that it's first run movies there are uninterrupted uncensored. And no commercials and I buy uncensored is a very important thing also because we find that in very many of the Spanish speaking countries in the world the movies that you see in the theaters are not necessarily the uncensored version of the movie. And there are very often for various reasons political reasons and very many reasons and there are more than one version. There is more than one version of the movie which is produced and by and large the public very often only sees the version that they are giving on validation. What we show them movies as the writers and the producers intended for the movie to be seen would that mean R rated for example in some cases and not necessarily I wouldnt think that the R
rating would be the major factor I would think possibly it would be more political and possibly for political reasons. One of the interesting developments in this whole thing we're talking about is the advent of first run movies on cable something that would have been unthinkable unutterable 10 years ago 15 years ago and now we see such movies as Superman The China Syndrome and other movies. First run movies that are showing on cable at the same time they're showing in the theaters. What about this trend. Is this do you think this is going to be magnified as time goes on. Oh absolutely. I definitely do. I know with our programming on the movies that we shall have never been seen on television and in some instances they have never even been seen in the theaters here in the United States. How interesting. Yes I'd like to ask all of the panelists if any one of you would want to pick up on this one. Well we all we're all going through a terrible inflationary time now. Families have fewer and fewer disposable dollars for recreation. Does this all mean that more families are going to stay home and perhaps
sit around a television set and watch that. Is it the economic condition that our country is going through relate to this very question we're talking about. And I think the economic situation in the country is relating to the businessman first because if some of us who read the trade papers are interpreting things correctly the theater owners are now beginning to say maybe we should consider that home screen as simply another marketplace for us and maybe we shouldn't fight so hard against having those first run movies there. I don't think though that it would be fair to say that at the very at this moment in time you really are getting simultaneous showing of movies on cable and in the theater. But it is more and more likely that as time goes by the time table is going to be changing. And of course with your kind of movies that's a very specialized field. I understand that but there are always other first run movies on there you have it with. Do you have others. No. No. All of all of our programming is original Spanish.
We have no English audio from that and that's dubbed the no button system system you can see such things as Superman and China Syndrome that now. Yes. Who's going to get more like that. And at the same time they're showing a neighborhood theater. I'm not a neighborhood that has made it but not when they first come out. Wouldn't you agree. Yes Jim I think what's happening from Hollywood's perspective is that a whole set of markets is being created. We have the theater that we have pay cable over the year paid television. Yes. Yes. And then we have video cassette recording video disc new thing about to begin. Then network television syndicated television I think from the point of view the creative community each market must be developed and maintained separately and then that will be good for Hollywood. It would be good for the creative people and that's what you're saying and maybe some of the people are saying instead of pretending that cable is going to go away like it's really a disease or something like some of these people do they're saying it is here to stay. Maybe we'd better accommodate to it. Is that what you're. Yes yes
absolutely. What are some of the exciting things. How much does it cost for example to have your vision is priced comparably to an English pay service and we suggest you give me six ninety five to ten ninety five and let's say it was somewhere between seven and $10. Yes. There are many people who are Hispanics are low income people not certainly not all of them but many people in certain Hispanic communities are low income. Are you still having those people spend or seven or eight dollars. Absolutely. Why are they doing. Absolutely Hispanics just generally speaking I spend more money on food and entertainment than their Anglo counterpart they do. And they would rather do this they would rather give your services at $8 and then go out for years. I'll tell you why. Because for one thing the Hispanic family is larger than the Anglo family. And as we were talking about the cost of living it's impossible these days for even middle class people with two children to go to a movie once a month or something.
How many systems have already in different areas signed up with calculation or at least areas of the country areas of the country you have on the board now. Probably somewhere around in the neighborhood of 40 systems one Jennifer Spanish speaking English speaking Spanish Americans do they prefer if they have their choice of say box office or Showtime and television. Would they prefer division. I think they might take both. Yes to Iraq. What has happened very many of our systems where they stay at particularly when they introduce in English and Spanish service simultaneously a great percentage of the people out there are diversity and pressures. It's totally different. Those are the original Spanish product. It's totally different. Something very interesting happened recently and I'm sure you're aware of it I was up at auction at Cablevision where they have a very large Spanish speaking public. And what they did they did introduce home box office and Nickelodeon which is free at the same time. But the manager told me that he was waiting to give Ghaleb version its
own introduction which will be May 1st May 5th similar to the I O 11 I've encouraged them to be along with the celebration very well with Home Box Office even though it increased the cost to the home buyer and he was expecting a great deal of success with that. You told me I couldn't believe it that 5000 people a month come in to pay their bills in person. You know that often and many of these systems do that my insistence that I'm working with an I don't know if it has to do with the Hispanic population but I know Hispanics for one thing don't like to mail anything back. How many hours a day are we talking about on your show eight hours a day during the week and on the weekends 15 hours a day and do you have any research on how many hours a day the viewers actually watch that offering. No I can't I cannot give you that right now. We've we only launched the service actually October 26. And I do not have any indication do you have now is that it's going like it's being received. Well. It's absolutely exciting. It really is it's very exciting. That's one tier of service and I think that you coined the phrase and I would ask you to coin a new one.
Greg I think you would have understood this was 79 with the year the. What is 1980 then of 1979 1980 is the year the tour became clear to have some understanding all. So it's conceivable then that they might have. Jennifer a vision they might be buying you know this or is that how the box office and so forth. In addition to that does that surprise you that people are willing to dig down and get that $10 bill out of that $20 bill or maybe even that $30 so that this television set get the other benefits if you want to call them benefits at least options at this time. I don't I don't find it surprising at all. I would have thought so perhaps 10 years ago because I would myself was totally against pay-TV I was outraged. Yes. When pay-TV was announced you know I thought my goodness I have to buy the set and then on top of that I have to pay that programming. Yes but not in this day and age. Now it's it's reached such sophistication that such alternatives in programming. And by and large it's cheaper to do that than it is to go out nowadays.
And what do you think. What do you think it means to the quality of life of these Hispanics. Tell us. I think you're. Particularly with the Hispanics. It is not simply a language situation. It is really a cultural situation. Hispanics like very many other Latin people Italians and so on. They're very proud of their culture. And this is a means for them to keep their culture going. Another aspect of it is many of these people have families living in the countries from which they came. And this leaves an open communication. Also they have something to talk about. I saw this movie on television I thought oh yes we just saw it in the theater last week and we have people writing letters and expressing this kind of thing. It's a tremendous cultural advantage also let us say Sub-Lieutenant Good luck to you in the days ahead for your show. Thank you very much. Thank you. Another important area of cable television programming is geared for children. This
doesn't mean simply a series of cartoons and it isn't exactly a classroom instructional television. It is instead geared to be entertaining but educational too. Using the best professional production techniques. Two examples of children's programming on basic cable service. Our Calliope and Nickelodeon both services provide specialized children's programming targeted to specific age groups at different times of the day. These programs are produced by the above mentioned cable services. Not everyone loves American jazz and is American made no contribution to the world. We could still be proud of our music makers feature today is a report on some of our greatest musicians the music that you listen to today would never have been composed had it not been for the people in our next movie.
Warner Amex satellite entertainment corporation proudly presents Nickelodeon the critically acclaimed young people's cable television network continuous commercial free entertainment for kids 13 hours a day every day of the week. Nickelodeon begins the day with pinwheel a five hour block of imaginative programming for preschoolers. To. Peter Lauer is currently the western regional sales manager for Warner Communications and formerly sales manager for KNX FM. He has been in radio sales for the past eight years. He's responsible for marketing of the Nickelodeon children's cable service to cable systems in 11 western states. Tell us what you do and why it is important.
Well we at Warner Amex feel that children's programming is definitely a very important area of programming that should be made available to as many people as possible. I say people because we treat the children as people we don't treat them as just someone who is going to get an added service. We feel that Nickelodeon programmed 13 hours a day beginning here on the west coast from at 7:00 a.m. and running until 8:00 p.m. definitely serves a purpose. We call it children's programming that is finally suited for the children. It doesn't talk down to the children. It doesn't refer to them as little kids. It treats them and their various age groups for what they are. We start with preschool children who are home with their mothers. If the mother isn't working or babysitters nursery schools children that are young and want a form of programming that can entertain them at the same time educate them without
teaching them how to count how to write how to read the alphabet throughout the day we progress with this programming to geared toward older children. Wrapping up the day where we are actually programming toward toward the teenagers across the country. Let's take a hypothetical case for example in public television we have a number of children's programming offerings and in commercial television they have a number of cartoons with either of those fit what you're doing. Or are you doing something some other kind of thing. Beyond that in some respects they would fit what we're doing but basically we've taken the violence out of any of the cartoons. We actually I think the key thing that we've done as I said earlier we're gearing it toward the specific age groups either noncommercial we don't break there are no breaks. We keep the segments and seven minute segments for each portion of the show that we're in. We feel by keeping these segments short for seven minutes but the children are going to
relate to them and be able to follow them without losing their attention. The repetition is gone after seven minutes of one portion. We will go right into another so that we feel that we're not losing them by going over and over repeating the same situation constantly. Two of the great charges in recent years against children's programming having to do with number one is that you're exploiting the child by telling him to chew bubble gum or something when sugar is outrageously bad for his teeth. That kind of thing. And the second one is a crusade being led by the PTA throughout the country saying that television is terribly bad for children because of its violence. How do you answer those two great criticisms against programming as it relates to children. Well I guess the first in answering the first question about telling them to buy a certain type of gum or candy or sugary goodies or some sugar is horrible for them is the fact that we don't have commercial interruptions that eliminates that altogether. So we're not promoting anything of the sort. The second area of taking the violence
out of the programming for the children is by the fact that we show action in our programming but we show it geared to the age group that more or less is going to be watching. We feel during a specific day now we're not always going to be able to key in a certain age group and say well no one under four is going to be watching now. So we can show a little more action but it's not the constant grind out brutality that you'll see on some of the commercial cartoon programs that are in existence. What are some of the sources from which you get these problems because obviously you're not producing all of them. It's a good thing we're producing all of them. All right. And what we do is we have certain groups obviously that are doing it for doing it for us. But it is under our constant supervision or outside groups they aren't Warner groups themselves but they are doing it for us under our constant supervision. Do you have a child psychologist Dr. Vivian Horner a psychologist. Yes she is and there is a constant influx. We have so many
people putting input giving us input as to what they feel we should be doing and we're all working at Warner to do that with our programming department working with these outside groups constantly feeding them information that we feel will be beneficial in producing the final product. Nick London has been here for some time now. Any plans for additional programming with Nickelodeon and perhaps even beyond the $30. But right now we don't have any additional plans for increasing the time but we do have a new program coming on called pocalypse and this is going to be a musical visionary music and it's going to have today's Rock Stars. This is going to gear obviously toward an older demographic the teenagers who will be able to relate to the music musician and the music that they're playing. This is the latest and it's going to be it's going to take effect in a couple of months now. Do you have all of this programming done or do you contract for the programming. Do you do it yourself. How did it all come into existence.
But we contract for it on an outside basis. We have groups that will produce it specifically for Warner so that we can put it under the title of Nickelodeon and then put it out over the air. The public might like to know too. Do you charge the cable operator or do you allow him to put advertising. How is this actually financed in terms of how does he get. We really have Nickelodeon as a not no charge service that we're providing to whomever desires to take it. We do charge a small fee to the cable owner per subscriber per subscriber just so that we can take that and use it for developmental purposes. But how much how do you derive your income. In other words how how do you shall return for your stockholders. Well Nickelodeon as we say is a service an educational instructional service geared to the youth of today. We have other services such as the movie channel which is a 24 hour the only 24 hour movie channel in existence
today on cable. So that is a money maker that is our money maker. I see in the Nickelodeon. What do you call the community service center. How do you basically a community service although we don't call it that we call it programming for children and we want the children of America to have the advantage of having this available to them. I see so it's sort of an altruistic endeavor is it not. Yes it's not a profit making thing. You're not really a profit making so I guess I'll try to you know advertise right now good morning as well for Warner. You have a do you carry that down your system. Joe we do have Nickelodeon and we're very pleased with it in several markets. Do you constantly monitor the popularity of the various channels so you can decide whether one should be tailored out and something else should be tailored and we have actually we we continue to do surveys of us and try to read all these services. I think I'm going to ask all of you to do a little dreaming with me and by dreaming I would like to all of you fantasize if you will where this whole thing is headed. The change has
been profound and astonishing in the last 10 years and we're up to now 16 million homes on cable six thousand different cable systems. Among the you know all the people in the 80 million viewers that we have predictions are that half of the 80 million households will be on cable within the next three or four years. So let's do a little dreaming and maybe we ought to start with you Peter because you stepped into the future with a system called cube. Tell us what happens with Cuba let's discuss cube anyway cube is a feedback system which enables the viewer in his home to respond to questions issues that come up and we emanate from the studio and we will say How do you feel about X Y or Z. The viewer is able to sit in his home and push a response button on his monitor. And in the studio we can read the reaction. This is incredibly
futuristic as far as is dreaming into the future but is it working. It's working it's working extremely well. It'll be interesting to see just how far we can expand. So you could ask a question let's say the one that would be very engaging right now. Should we boycott the Olympics. Yes. And we. We can get an instant response from our subscribers a good answer. A good example is in Columbus Ohio where it's in existence. Yes. A snowstorm paralyzed the city of Columbus. The mayor was told that to properly clear the snow to get the funds to properly clear the snow what he would have to do is take money away from recreation areas for the city. What happened. He went on Kube to get a reading. People said we don't care about the snow if it takes a week longer to clear it. Let's have it. We don't want our recreation areas hurt hurt. So I know there is there is a decision was made. People really lose. And he was very happy Needless to say.
What about banking by cable. What about shopping by cable. What are voting by cable. What about some of these things. Who wants to ruling the threshold I think for the first time in the history of the cable business Jim with the acceptance of our products in the most difficult television markets. I think it can be said number one that every city in America is going to have the availability of cable over the next decade. We've been unable to see that till now. People are demanding it and they're going to they're going to motivate their politicians to action to grant a cable franchise. Secondly because of this momentum I believe that's beginning and the advent of real life two way cable systems such as the system in Columbus all of these new things home security electronic funds transfer systems shopping from home are much closer than any of us would have predicted a year ago or not just bluenoses or not there are active developmental programs underway.
You know in the beginning everybody said that cable for the big cities had to provide extra services and everybody was racking their brains what do we got to provide today. We've got more than enough with the security systems. I was going to venture a guess since you said dream. I think that in time we're going to settle down and not have all those channels of entertainment. I think we're really going to go into the services I think it will be the banking the shopping the security and the rest. And everybody is beginning to take that view. And they're all much more optimistic than ever would have seemed possible in the past. Is providing entertainment information education and I think one of the most important things is communication open communication two way two way people communicating across the country in ways that we've never been able to do before. One of the things that the station does and as a public television station and educational station we provide something didn't exist before which was college credit television. So we produced the opportunity for people literally to go to college sitting in their living room. Do you see
that laughter. Is all of this good or bad. We have a few seconds left who want to take it it is never never about ever. But the service is. Not just entertainment but these few little Jim if I may. It's good. You know American tradition the marketplace ought to determine if there is a better mousetrap or a different mousetrap. People love to have a chance to buy that and maybe a better mousetrap is in store for all of us would we have been a very interesting discussion. And I want to thank all of our guests for being with us and we certainly thank all of the different services that have made it possible for us to use these different tapes that we showed examples of. It's been a special broadcast on cable on the cable television industry for public television. I'm Jim Cooper. Thanks for being with us. On.
To. One or. Two. On.
Proposition 9 the proposed constitutional initiative to cut state income taxes in half. It's been described as the most important issue on the June election ballot. Kalos EPB in Huntington Beach now presents a special debate on this issue with Howard Jarvis author of Proposition 9 versus State Senator James Armorel's president pro tem of the California State Senate. Now here's your host Jim Cooper. Today's debate will be concerned with Proposition 9 on the June ballot initiative for a constitutional amendment to cut state income taxes in half. This will be the third tax cutting initiative to come before California voters in the past two years. In June 1978 voters strongly approved Proposition 13 co-authored by Howard Jarvis which cut property taxes by 57 percent last November. Voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition for the Gahanna initiative which limited state spending to the growth of the population and the cost of living. Today we have as our guest the two leading spokesmen pro and con on the new tax cutting proposal Proposition 9 also
referred to as Jarvis to or jaws to sometimes Howard Jarvis was formerly a publisher of 10 newspapers in Utah. He's lived in California since 1934 and built a manufacturing business that grew to thirteen thousand employees. Since 1962 he's been a state chairman of the United organization of taxpayers. He's also executive secretary of the Los Angeles County apartment owners association. In 1978 he co-authored Proposition 13 with Paul Gannon has since spoken throughout the nation in many foreign countries and what he has called his tax revolt. Senator James R. Mills 40th district San Diego a Democrat has been president pro tem of the California State Senate since 1971. He was elected to the state assembly in 1960 and served there until he was elected to the state senate in 1966. He's become one of the most powerful legislators in the state and has become the most vocal opponent to Proposition 9 within all of state government. He's been recognized nationally for his legislative efforts for public transportation. But before our debate on
Proposition 9 Let's look quickly at this measure which will be offered to the states 10 million voters in June when they step into their polling places. The wording on their ballots will look like this. A total of only forty nine words taxation income provides personal income taxes not exceed 50 percent of the 1978 rates and business inventory taxation indexes income taxes fiscal impact reduction of income tax revenues by 4.9 billion in 1980 81 and substantial reductions thereafter substantial reduction in state expenditures including aid to local governments commencing in 1980 81. Simply stated it proposes to do three things. It reduces state personal income tax rates by 50 percent of their 1978 level. It ends the business inventory tax. It indexes state income taxes to the growth of the California consumer price index
the official state estimate of cuts in state revenues for all of 1980 and the first half of 1981. If Proposition 9 passes is 4.9 billion however a bill now before the legislature SB 14 64 by Senator Campbell would make the proposition effective only after June 3rd. If that bill passes the estimated reduction in state income tax revenues would be 3.5 billion for the first year. Well now ask each guest to open giving a statement of two minutes after that each will be given a one minute rebuttal. Following this they will be asked to comment on the most important aspects of Proposition 9 and each will be given up to three minutes to respond. And now welcome gentlemen to the program and let's start with Mr. Jarvis. Well Proposition 9 will give an income tax cut of 50 percent to every person in California who works for a living and gets a check on Friday. It will not give any tax
reductions to the wealth of California which as anyone knows is the major corporations. They don't get any reduction whatsoever. Only the people that work will get the reduction. I think is about 10 million. I'm the business and finance department of the University of California at Los Angeles. Every time there's a constitutional amendment on the ballot they analyze it. They analyze it as does the California taxpayers association which is not a part of us it's a large tax organization and represents major corporations but they have the best research in California there to an out analyzation of this abetment come out like this. These are conclusions. This is UCLA about the money cut back in excess of 15 percent. Not likely I cut back of 10 percent is possible but has less than a 50/50 chance. Our best estimate is the total cutback will
be 7 percent. You'll notice that the governor says 30 cut back three percent is possible but not likely. In addition to that on page 8 of their report they say this. They arrive at this figure by say from this fact the total income tax taken into seven billion dollars if you divide that by two is three and a half. But the politicians come out with five. The UCLA report says it. I'll read it a little later because my time is running out for this segment that the maximum cut will be one point one billion. And it also says it will provide wage increases of about 7 percent per year to all public employees through 1981 1983. Senator the problem was that I see with Proposition line is the nature of the tax cut. If we can afford a tax cut which isn't clear yet because we haven't really adjusted Proposition 13 and we have been using up the surplus that we had which was an ungodly surplus by the way. But we have been using it often.
If we pass this we will we will. Spend it spend it promptly in the course of a year apparently or perhaps at most two years from that time forward there will be substantial cuts in various activities in some cases it will be 7 percent but in some cases it will be zero percent because there are programs we can't cut back. And in some cases Well we'll be forced to put charges on people for example there's the potential of tuition for students and so forth. And in order to accomplish that we will cut the income tax. Inherently the problem that I see in it is that when you cut the income tax basically it turns out best for the people who have the most. Now there are various ways you can present that the way that the governor presented it the other day was I think a fair one. And that is that 10 percent of the people will get 50 percent of the benefit. The other 90 percent of the people of California will share the other. The other 50 percent of the benefit. So what we see here is a measure which very substantially benefits the people who are well-to-do the people who have the highest incomes and will cause
problems for people who benefit from services of government. The more equitable way to proceed with it seems to me if we were trying to provide needed tax relief if we can afford it which I don't think we can I'm sure we'll get into that the more equitable way to proceed with it would certainly have been to cut the sales tax and of that I think would be right if we can do it. But I don't think we can. All right let's take a one minute rebuttal now. Mr. Jarvis do you have anything that you'd like to respond. Yes that I desire to see Jim fall into this trap he's such a nice guy. I think I can explain it better for the press to understand it this way. It reminds me of two fellows that bought a ticket for a concert in the afternoon and one pilot was poor and he paid a dollar for the seat and the other father was rich and he paid $5 to see his seat. You know and so they canceled the show. So they did give the man back to low for the dollar and they give the wealthy guy $5 and the little
fella says this is a dirty deal. The rich are getting the advantage of this and the cars just can't compost because the real wealth in California and I don't think GM can deny this is corporate wealth corporate wealth. They don't get a nickel. Now I have asked some of the other people on this side GM I to give me a few names of this rich that you think it will help. Now up to up to now they haven't come up with one name. All right. Senator do you think you were one badly frightened response. Well I think that that Howard presented a very good simile. I think that that's a fair one but we have had the feeling over the years that people who have higher incomes should pay higher rates of taxes. And that has been considered equity. So we come to a basic difference of opinion and I think it is a basic difference that a fair statement that I don't think Howard would disagree with and that is that I I think it's fair to say that I think that the income tax as it's administered is a more equitable tax that should bear a heavier part of the burden. I think Howard feels that the sales tax is a more equitable tax
and should carry a heavier part of the burden and I think that that's a that's a fair statement was a fair difference of opinion. Well I disagree that on the sales tax. But let me put it to you in another way. Under the law. Now before I say we have a fellow that pays a hundred dollars in taxes low down here then we have a guy with $100000. He pays a thousand dollars income tax. That's the law now. Right now the rich guy pays ten times what the little guy does. Now you passed Proposition 9. It don't change the proportion at all. The poor fellow not paying $50 and there is father now pays five hundred. He still pays 10 times as much as the low Fallot. So if what you say is true Jim the law that you've had in effect all these years has been benefiting the rich all the time but the legislature never told anybody. All right gentlemen. I guess I should get a couple of seconds on that very quickly. You I'm not in an area that that really doesn't get around to the basic elements of the proposal the basic elements of the proposal do it provide more
tax relief for people who pay more money in that 10 percent figure getting 50 percent is accurate and the people who are suffering are going to suffer are going to be people who benefit from public public services and for the most part those are people if they need public services there are people at the bottom end of the scale. So I think that that is an undesirable course. I don't like the fact I can say that and I'm not. But then the other thing Jim is the fellow that paid $15000 a year he gets seventy point eight percent reduction in his tax. The fellow that makes 50000 and gets 49 percent reduction in his debt so he can in my fight my life I say if I had to I would like the person who earns say 9000 to year yes gets no cut because he doesn't say anything. And no matter what the percentages of nothing is still nothing whereas he may be losing library services maybe losing other services that are important. Right. We have a question gentlemen about that later on. Now I want to go into another area where I will direct some of the most commonly asked questions to help these 10 million voters in California make up their mind what to do. I'm going to read the question gentlemen then I'm going to ask each of you to take up to three minutes you may take
all of three minutes or an hour according to State Legislative Analyst William Jihad the sales tax loss of 4.9 billion from Prop 9 will be equal to 25 percent loss in the total state general revenue funds for 1980 81 and a four point two billion loss in 1981 82. The question is well the loss of these revenues cripple the state and local governing bodies preventing them from performing their basic services to the public. And Senator let's have you go first. But you can't say that it will prevent a first. Those guys say it will cripple them and it will cripple them. It will cut back on the services that will be provided and as a result of Proposition 13. We've seen some cutbacks for example generally speaking throughout the state of California. There's been about a nine percent cut back in library services. And that's with how things be without are running through our our our surplus I think things are going to get tighter and we'll be more of the cutbacks so obviously there is a cut back. This will cut that will result in cutbacks in services. I would like to raise a warning and I'm sure Howard would if I didn't and that is
about the figure four 4.9. Because that's what the measure originally provided for and if legislation is passed get the candidate out of it. You know the effects of it may well be mitigated the Campbell Bill says that in effect the proposal would take effect the day after June 4th the day after the election. Now there is a problem with it and a constitutional problem that hasn't been resolved and we may not resolve it until we go to court and we might not find out about it till after we go to court. But be that as it may even in subsequent years they've had it be four point two billion and you will add state services. That's the question it'll come back substantially on state services. It'll cut back on many kinds of services. And when you look at it the general fund and we're talking about a cut cut in general fund expenditures we're not talking about highway funds or something else at this point at least about 50 percent of what the general fund spends is on education. Part of that goes to public schools at subventions over half of the cost of public schools in the state of California a kindergarten through the 12th grade is covered covered by the state. You also have
the costs in there is a contribution from the state for community colleges. And there's of course the state the State University the University of California and the state colleges and universities as well. Those are supportive also and they're included in that figure of 50 percent. So if you look to cutting the expenditures of the general fund of the state of California if you're going to cut substantially there will have to be cuts where we spend the money. You can't you can't cut out where you don't spend money you can't economize where you're not saving money or you're not spending money. So a substantial part would have to come out of education and it appears that a good deal of this would probably be made up at least as far as universities are concerned and state colleges from imposition of tuition. And that bothers me a great deal that is imposing a tuition on kids when we want to see them educated. We want to encourage their education to provide any discouragement I think is undesirable and something that we shouldn't do. The other two major programs I should mention are 20 percent of what we spend from the general fund goes for for health and
15 percent for welfare. And just to close with time let me say that that's 85 percent. So the 85 percent has to come from those programs. When we cut back. And that's the effect. Would you say it's crippling or debilitating what's the word you'd use then so we can call it up. I I wouldn't say crippling because I don't know what we'll get. You have to wait and see what happens because it depends on what happens to the state of the economy. Ken's on a number of things. It will certainly be damaging. How damaging does remain to be seen as damaging. All right. I disagree. You want me to repeat the question here. No not quite. I disagree with it totally. Can I offer as evidence that the governor's budget this year is three thousand million dollars higher than it was last year. And the governor whose name is Brown said we can have that increase and with no increase in taxes. Now where did they get the money under that and then they got the money. According because the economy after 13 in California went way up. I have here a
report by the United States Department of Commerce and the General Accounting Office that says that 10:13 created in California five hundred and sixty two thousand new jobs in private industry that because of California the state of 13 the state of California's inflation is one percent less because of 39-A economy is twice as good as any other state and because a great many of those people got jobs didn't have jobs. We're going to have a major cut in government costs and we're going to have more money after 13 8:09 we'll still like 3 billion dollars more than it ever did before. Now this is the best information I have. I got it from Arthur Laffer. I got it from the economy. It's a three point three billion more than it ever had before. Is that coming from sales taxes or other sources all in the name them. Yes I think generally yes all come from sales tax. Yes. Because when you have 500000 people got new jobs that were previously on state aid they now pay sales tax an income tax when the economy goes up. The state the money that the
state collects and the state will collect in addition to that. And I think General agreement is two billion more in oil revenue this year. Alan Passons at 5:00 the other day I don't know where you got that as he did he had five we have an eight million surplus collect two billion in revenue revenue. Now there is just one thing I want to make clear. A reasonable tax cut in any state and at night is reasonable and 13 is raising the ball creates more money for the state than it ever had before. So as Jim tells you what you're going to cut is because the legislature are not doing their job and they haven't done for 25 years and that and that was how I would answer that. Let's move to another area that you touched on. I want to see home in Iowa. I hope we're going to be getting back to the subject of the state of the economy after the passage of yesterday. We'll get to that later. Mr. Ruff you anything like that. We're coming back to that. Currently 52 percent of the general fund dollars go to education for a total of nine point seven billion this year. State Superintendent Wilson Riley says Prop 9 passage would be devastating to public education. U.S.
President David Saxton says it will damage the university system seriously and probably require tuition fees State University Chancellor Glen dunky says sixty five thousand seventy five thousand students would not be able to enroll and tuition charged and will probably have to be made equaling seven hundred thousand a year. Community colleges Chancellor Gerald Hayward says community colleges which have been open and free to everybody would now have to consider tuition. The question is will proposition 9 be good or bad for education. Mr. Jarvis Well I think that this is a very startling statements because they made the same statement they said 13 will do all of these things. Now as much as 13 dead all of them we don't have any schools there's no community colleges at all according to these clowns who made the predictions. I think the answer to that really that I would make to you as one of our opponents in the state Senate by the name of rodder Senator I said the problem that they have in fighting nine is that Howard Jarvis has credibility in the state and the legislature does not.
And the school people have never had any credibility unfortunately. I don't know whether they have low IQ or what it is about everybody from the governor down said 13 past there would be no more schools. It would gut the state no welfare nothing at all turned out to be a massive pack of lies. And I think the same people tell the same lies. So your answer is. Well Prop 9 Be good or bad for education. Well I'll tell you about education. I don't know how you can hurt education in this state. I just don't know how you can hurt it. We've been adding money and pouring extra money into education fund. Every year we pour more money and the system gets worse. Now as far as tuition is concerned the secondary commission on education in Sacramento issued a report today that whether 2:09 or not they're going to have to charge tuition. So you're saying it will have a neutral effect on it. I don't think it would hurt education at all. And besides it should. And I think Jim knows this there is a. There is a section in the Constitution of the state of California. It shouldn't be there but it's there.
It says it's the schools the public schools in California have first call on all the state money first. So they're not in any danger unless the legislature cheats and shuts them off. All right. Your answer to that question. Well Prop 9 be good or bad for education. It's going to be damaging to education. The reason that Proposition 13 didn't hurt the schools I think everyone knows and that is that the Department of Finance and the administration the State of California have a lot of political figures as Howard says told people that we only have a little over a billion dollars in surplus and that wasn't true. They didn't have they said just something like that and I said it was under 2 and the Howard Jarvis and I both did the same thing because we're both got all foxes at this game. We both called the treasurer of the state of California just under who told us the truth as he saw it and it was pretty close to right that we had oh between five and six billion dollars. So that that created certainly a first a credibility gap and it also created the situation that were in fact Proposition 13 passed.
And it did not substantially damage the schools or local government some programs were cut. Obviously the some programs are going to be cut more heavily than others. I mentioned libraries for example road repairs maintenance of buildings and so forth have been cut. The the the the problem that we now have is that the same source which I think is as authoritative as we can get. The Treasurer says we have about two and a half billion and we run through that two and a half billion dollars quickly. If this measure is passed. So it does seem that there will be very substantial cuts since since Fifty two percent goes through education there has to be a substantial cut in the money available for education and I I am convinced that that will result in substantial cutbacks in programs. Now there are obviously some so economies I don't think that anyone would suggest that there are no economies that can be effective in education without without doing harm. But I think there are relatively few. And
the part that concerns me is the part that I perhaps emphasize maybe just saying too much about it. It concerns me that that the cost for students will be increased because I think all of us benefit when someone goes to school. I think if a person gets a good education as I think people are and I think the university system in the state of California is excellent the state college system in general generally the public schools no doubt leaves something to be desired but so does every human institution from the church to the Legion post. But I think they make. They're making the most important contribution that can be made. We we believe in this country is a land of opportunity and the only way people can develop their potential and realize the opportunities we hope that they will realize is by being prepared for them and we all benefit when someone else becomes a success. I like 10 seconds Jim is it true that by a two thirds vote of the state legislature of both houses you can raise any other tax you want for anything. And therefore if
they get the legislature to pass whatever kind of a tax bill they want and then the sale is solved. Right now there's no restriction on the legislature except a two thirds vote. They can raise any tax for education or anything else that was provided in Proposition 13. I heard your state and all these rich people talking about if their schools are in trouble all his salary and that somebody has to do is to say we're going to have a new tax for schools and raise. But they can't do it on the property tax. OK. Mike Mike ten seconds. Is that the only tax that raises a very substantial amount of money. The only other tax is a sales tax. We only have two major sources of income. So if we did that it would be an increase in the sales tax which I think would be highly undesirable. Apparently Mr. Jarvis made it very clear he does not believe the statements made by the statements I read by university people that Mr. Ryles. Mr. President do you believe them when they say that they will have to put tuition on things that are either now free or almost free. Do you believe these statements or do you think that this is the credibility gap that he's referred to.
Well I believe these statements. I certainly believe that will be necessary to impose division charges. But it isn't clear yet how much you get to getting back to the tuition charges and fees like that. And again you get back to the point of not being able to really predict what the what the situation of the state will be economically and that's for a number of reasons. One is inflation is so so crazy that it introduces a totally wild factor which makes it impossible to estimate. Another is that we don't we're we're expecting some real changes in the economy as a result of fighting inflation. So there are these factors that we can't really properly weigh an estimate. So we don't know just how much it will be. But know you've heard of the argument of the boy who cried wolf that Mr. Jarvis said some of these institutions said last time terrible things would happen. And because of the bailout they didn't happen. Do you think that same escape mechanism exists now or do you think that the bailout is going to go away and these things will happen. I think that the Treasury gave us accurate figures always Mr. Boehner I think gave us accurate figures always as to what
the financial condition of the state was. And those figures indicated a 1 1 Proposition 13 was considered and passed that we had a tremendous surplus. They indicate now that the surplus is less than half of that and that we are spending more than we're taking in. And that that surplus would disappear anyway. All right. A couple of your next question deals directly to that. And I would like to start with you this time Senator. The California ballot pamphlet through comments by legislative analyst William Hamm says that the state surplus will be 1.8 billion by this June 30th 1980. The office of state treasurer Jess Unruh and I called his office today informed me that the state surplus will be 2.6 billion on June 30th 1980. State Senator Albert Rodda chairman of the state Senate Finance Committee said the surplus is 1.8 billion but it is declining to what will be a 900 million deficit by the end of 1981 82 he said. The loss from Prop 9 will be traumatic and adverse and can't be made up from the surplus because it won't exist at the end of the next year. So the question
is just what is the amount of the state surplus and will it continue to support programs if Prop 9 passes. Senator Well you have authority just three different figure authorities who all know more than I that I know about it. I must admit I have been depending upon the Treasurer over the last few years because his figures have been best and I'm going to continue to depend upon him he gives the highest figure which is to point to the twenty six billion 2.6 billion. So the question the question ultimately is not even under present circumstances will we spend the surplus and get down to a point where we have no surplus because we are spending more than we're taking in. That will take place. The only dispute is to whether that will take place in the end of the fiscal year 88 81 or 81 82 or at what point. But the that is inevitable. And at that point there will be substantial cutbacks in government services without the passage of Proposition 9. And we've seen some of I refer to the libraries or I can refer to roads everyone knows driving down the street that there are more potholes than there used to be and the maintenance isn't as good.
And I can I can tell people in hope that they will accept it as true because it is true that on many public investments the maintenance isn't being done on buildings and so forth. But there's a limit to how far you can go with that. And even with those economies being affected we are spending the surplus and when the surplus is spent without the passage of Proposition 9 there will be a substantial cutback in all manner of governmental services in most things that government does and some programs will be more than it is in others. Obviously the public safety is so affected by police services and fire services that the cuts there will not be as great as they'll be in the park services for example. So it will be differential. School services are are probably going to suffer badly as I've mentioned. But it will be differing amounts. But it would be it would be improper for anyone at this point to try to say that it will take place on such and such a date or that the extent of the cuts at that time will be a
certain amount. But you're saying it will run out. We know that the truth is that the surplus is running out and will run out. The truth is that without Proposition 9 there will be cutbacks in government services and that with Proposition 9 those cutbacks will certainly be greater. Mr. Jarvis what I think I have great respect for the senator I tried to find out and I believe he was only a politician in Sacramento Sacramento's it hard to know how to deal Jesse Andro that because of the governor and all the other legislators had brains enough to dial the phone they wouldn't have lied so much about the surplus. However he did say one thing that I also agree with he says we don't know. That's what he said. Now the reason that we don't know what it is or we don't know when it's going to run I don't know what it's going to run out and I don't know what it is and that's an honest statement. And because they don't know this legislature just hired a commission a company called Fire LLC data resources for which they paid $85000. And this
organization is going to find out how much the surplus is and they were going to report to the legislature. June the 30th. Twenty seven days after the election. Now this is the legislature spending $85000 and they say we don't know what we're talking about so we got to hire somebody from over here. This is the answer to most of the senator's comments about it. I think the answer is true that they don't know. And I think the answer is true that some people like Arthur Laffer an economist and the UCLA have some idea about it. Now to back up what I want to say a little bit. I don't know what they did it for but I seem to remember the name of Tom Bate's introduced a bill into the assembly the other day and had 26 71 signed it. And the headline is appeared in the Sampson's examiner March 27 that automatic sales tax cut to avoid a surplus. They want to cut two cents off the sales tax because they think the surplus after nine passes is going
to be so big that it will be obscene. And they want to divide the surplus. And so that's the kind of stuff that comes out of that situation that I think parents particularly I should come back to both of you it seems remarkable that within the structure the state government we have 800 millions of dollars apart from two people who are supposed to have figured one out. Mr. Ham get as the state treasurer under eight hundred millions of dollars apart. As of today on just how much surplus money we have which one of you wants to I'd like to say something I'd like to say something first. Senator you talked about the roads in my office not long ago. Ken Carney said they have hundreds of millions of dollars surplus in the highway from hundreds of millions from the park. Who said this. Stan Correy court how come the potholes. OK you going to respond to that. Those are just not here. No not our pothole program. But that's what he's going to want to have.
It's not meant you know the answer to that is that the money is in the highway fund the state highway fund for expenditure on state highways. Yes. And the shortfall as a result of Proposition 13 which affected the property tax a shortfall for local governments and the money that we we have we shouldn't have it should be expended the money that we have in a highway fund. We have had a problem with the Department of Transportation and getting them to proceed and sign contracts to build highways that should be built. Do you want to respond to my other question though about the seemingly large no comment about parity between two responsible state offer that are 800 million miles apart on what they think we have in surplus dollars. That's the point voters would like on that question. It's deplorable to put it in the plainest terms in one proposition 13 was before the public. We had another proposal that became Proposition 8 which is supposed to be the answer. I voted against that because I couldn't accept the figures that were being presented by the administration as a result of that I carried a piece of legislation which set up a
commission on state finances which is chaired by gests honor. That's the commission that Howard Jarvis referred to. That's the commission's contracting for the estimate to tell us what the surplus is on June 30th the first thing that there are issues that will be 27 days after the election is over. Exactly. Exactly the frustration that's involved in this for all of this is tremendous. Now whether the proper response to that frustration is to vote for Proposition 9 is another question entirely. But I cannot tell you how frustrating it's been over the years to try to get decent figures out of the Department of Finance. Basically Mr. him seniors are from the Department of Finance. They're the ones that have been giving us all the figures all along are the figures that will be in everybody's ballot. That's right. Voters of California are going to vote this is what they're going to read in ballots are fraud. It really is a fraud that the about on there is a fraud at least that's where Mr. Hammes calls all of what we have already established that well he's depending upon the Department of Finance
that's where he gets his figures from. He doesn't have an independent capacity to write it figures. He has to accept data and he happened to finance it is at odds with the state treasurer. That's right. And the Department of Finance has been all along. The safest thing I think to do the the conservative thing to do is to accept the Treasury's figure which is a high figure. All right. So that's what I'm doing. All right. And I don't you know I don't know what else a reasonable person can do except feel a sense of frustration that regardless of what it is that it is running out that its days are numbered is that. My point is that it doesn't make any difference if it's our actions it doesn't make any difference. The critical point is not whether it's 2.6 million or if it's a lesser amount. The critical point is it will run out right and that the effect will be felt by the public and the services they receive from government. And whether that's six months earlier or eight months later is not ultimately the most important question because what we have here is a measure of of tremendous importance relative to the whole philosophy of government philosophy of taxation and so forth and it should not be
people who shouldn't vote for it or against it because it's going to take. It's going to have an effect upon them and the services they receive in July of 1982 as your caller is saying it'll catch up with the weather dessert later as opposed to December of 83. You're saying it's like a volcano. I don't know what day the volcano is going to go. The answer to that is in the U.S. Well every part I think the maximum over year decline predicted devolve. Proposition 9 is 3.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 1981 and employment growth again at 2.2 percent by 1983. Now this is another vast difference between what the state says and what that UCLA says and cut taxes the same as is. And what I think that I really think Jim that they don't if they're not able up and in Sacramento to give you any reliable figure today or yesterday or tomorrow and 10 years from now and everything they say up there is subject a very serious question. Let me accept I'll go back to the point that our mutual friend just on has been pretty reliable
as far as jobs are concerned. I wouldn't want to pass that by without commenting on it. The question of whether jobs increase jobs will be created or not by it is is very problematical and it's difficult. Difficult to know the number of new jobs created according to the figures we have during the year after Proposition 13 was adopted was four hundred and sixty one thousand. The number of new jobs the year before that was six hundred and thirty five thousand. So there was a substantial reduction in the new jobs increase in the in the in the new the new jobs within the state of California. So I don't think that it's possible to presume from the passage of of nine that because it puts money into circulation by that means that by the way there's a real question as to what the ultimate effect here is that it will in fact result in new jobs. The experience we have with Proposition 13 doesn't indicate that. Right. Let me go to another question now Jim is saying we don't know anything about it today. But we have a crystal ball and in 1983 it will be this. That's what you're saying. No I'm
saying that. No no no. I was challenging Howard's statement that that this will create new jobs. All right. While I was challenging on the basis of our experience with Proposition 13 I have another question I'll be coming to that one. All right but let me ask because when I and again I ask you to not use up any more than your three minutes try and make them I'll use less. Governor Brown is declaring his opposition to proposition 9 on March 20th said 10 percent of all Californians earning 40000 or more will get 55 percent of the break from Prop 9 while the other 90 percent of the taxpayers who make less than 40000 will get only 45 percent a break. Another argument says that it will not help the 2.8 million senior citizens who pay no income taxes at all. So the question is Is it fair to say that Proposition 9 disproportionately helps the rich while getting little help to the poor. And let's start with Mr.. Of course not that's a bunch of garbage. Now there's one true thing that people in California who don't pay a nickel income tax
we can't help them by cutting income tax they already help them out. They don't pay any now I made the point a little while ago that today under the present law of low income family pays $100 income tax. The high income guy pays a thousand dollars. That's the president today. He pays ten times what the low band pays today. Under Proposition 9 the proportion won't change a bit. The low end game guy will pay $50 and the high end game guy will pay five hundred dollars and he still pays 10 times. And anybody who says this is a benefit for the rich that the legislature haven't already given they've got holes in his head. SENATOR think the figures speak for themselves as the bulk of the the bulk of about half it will go to the to the top 10 percent of the people. And the way that it's likely to be paid for when we start to try to save. I mentioned we will have to save a substantial amount on education. We'd have to save a substantial amount on welfare. Well where does the welfare money go. Most of it is in payments to aged blind and disabled. And then we do have a smaller amount that goes for
dependent children. That's a program that generally is unpopular with people who weren't involved in it. But most of it is aged blind and disabled. We cannot cut that back. If we if we find ourselves in a hard place and Suppose we get into a depression a lot of a lot of our best people are people from Crocker Bank and Bank of America and so forth Chase Manhattan to say we're going to get into some very hard times which will cut back on our income if we get into difficult times. We can't take away money from those people very well because there is a matching federal program and each dollar we take away we lose a federal dollar. But what we can do is not pass along our cost of living increase. And that's that's where we would have to economize on that program if we have to economize on it. And if we economize on it I think that people should be concerned that it's a rather uncivilized thing to do would be taking money away from people who average about $168 a month to live on and that's that's a real hardship existence in order
for the 10 percent of the people of the state of California who are wealthiest to get 55 percent of the benefit. We shouldn't be taking money away from people who are living on 168 million $168 dollars a month to give it to people who are receiving perhaps $10000 a month. If there was any truth in that I'd be unhappy I'd take mine away. But it's funny as hell. In the first place you have to look at a legitimate figure. Not only in California but in the United States. If the government taxed every person in the United States 10 they made over $50000 a year and took it off that would only run the government 19 days out of the year the middle class guy has to pay for that. Three hundred and forty six days out of the year no matter if they took all his wealth that you're talking about. That really doesn't exist. Senator things. That's right. Senator when you when you two gentlemen were talking recently in a debate that I saw in Los Angeles you said that among these programs like the blind and the but with the other program
the aged It is mind you saving the bulk of welfare. You mentioned specifically that these are people that you may have to cut down things like people who need dentures. People who need glasses. You said some senior citizen maybe even before asked if they're bad enough to have to eat dog food or something like that. That was after the debate and but it doesn't say that on that. All right. Well the other let's just call it the dentures or the dentures and glasses. Are you saying these programs would be eliminated or just cut down first for these 2.8 million seniors will say well that could be cut out. And the reason for it again is that is the problem of our cutting where we don't get federal dollars. We want to minimize the adverse effects of cuts and therefore if they're if we spend a dollar in the federal government matches it with a dollar or two dollars that are being spent for the benefit of Californians who need the program presumably now into health programs there are certain programs for the federal government doesn't participate. I was referring to those and they include programs where dentures are provided where glasses are provided there is a there is either no federal participation or minimal federal participation.
So I said that when we get beyond the 50 percent we spend on education the 20 percent we spend on welfare and we get to the next biggest category which is the 15 percent we spend on our own. It's 20 percent on health 15 percent on welfare. So it's the second largest program and we try to economize there we are undoubtedly going to try to minimize the impact upon Californians and therefore it is that kind of program that would have to suffer if we are forced to make savings there. And if we're forced to make savings they will have to come out of education and welfare and health. There's no way that program could conceivably be cut. That's what you're saying. Yes that's right. I disagree with it in the first place. Jim what do you think pays the federal dollars. We get back North Dakota they come from California California last year paid while the state was taking in. Forty thousand million dollars in taxes in California. The federal government was taking in from California in one year. Fifty thousand million dollars in taxes. Ninety thousand million dollars in taxes. And this is paranoic. Now I know that
the senator is an honest man and I know how they legislatures heart bleeds for the glasses. They're so honest that they just added another eight million dollars to put a marble building up in Sacramento on the front. They had 40 million overrun already. Now if this were building what building are we talking some building up there. Who knows. We reported yesterday and I guess eight million dollars that they're going to put on that marble will buy all the glasses at all for all the people and that's the way the legislature thinks is is want to respond to that. I don't know what building that was building frankly. The problem was with the state capitol and the state capitol Well there's some building up there. You call it California. It's the reconstruction of the old building the old building got to a point where it was they told us that we were in a earthquake of this magnitude. Sacramento has suffered that the building would fall down. It's a fascinating subject and I wish I had. To go into it. They told us we had to rebuild it and we did and the costs have escalated because the inflation of that of building the destruction struck completion of construction has been stupendous. And because we were
held up by various lawsuits from proceeding with it. So we really weren't a problem. But I do want to mention that Howard's right we pay the federal income tax. All of California. The problem is when we pay more and get less back and we pay more if this passes because while it would be Galbally 22 percent or whatever of what you paid I just want to say if they didn't dollars more federal income and because of the absence of these other Prop 13 that's really not what we lost on Proposition 13. But the fact of it is about this we can't we can't correct that paranoid bunch in Washington and with an amendment. But the average guy does save nine hundred bucks on his taxes. He had to pay $70 more federal income tax so he's and thirty dollars and now there's nothing we can do it to correct that stupidity over there. All right. I want to say one other thing that I don't know about. All right. Yours also. All right. OK. I would say one other point it needs to be said. Yes. Inflation is called by by high taxes and deficit spending. If we want to correct inflation we've got to cut the taxes. And if we don't cut
the taxes it'll still run forever. Got to get back quickly. We should say that the eight million dollar and the building that they're spending for the state is just extra. Maybe that needs to be spent because of that building fell down it might hurt some legislating. But you know people are generally kind of fell down and with didn't get out for three years. Look how happy. All right. Another question gentlemen do you want one thing. Yeah a couple of things on that. One is that if we save a certain amount of money or if it isn't spent in California yes we shouldn't assume that that will result in reduced income taxes for the state of California. If we saved some money in California by then a portion of that money going to go right back to Washington. Oh I think that's clear. Nobody said that. No I wasn't even talking about Howard mentioned that if we don't spend if we don't accept federal matching funds if we don't do things to claim those federal matching funds that that will result in less money being collected from us in taxes but it won't work that way it'll collect the money from us anyway whether we get the sharing dollars back or not. I'm saying that the savings will be shared by the people of the 50 states. OK. And the cost will be to people who are who are needy people in the state of California.
He's absolutely right on that. But Senator Krasnov said on television that we would not suffer for any federal money in the state of California if 9 passed. He said that on channel 2 for left to right our differences on that point our differences is how do we economize. If it passes we economize by not affecting those programs where we lose federal dollars. All right. The U.S. Department of Commerce reports California had the highest personal income taxes in the nation in the third quarter 78 in 1978 after passage of Prop 13. Economist Kenneth Burkeman of the Commerce Department says the main reason why the beneficial effect of Prop 13 on the state's economy. The question What passage of Prop 9 have this kind of a boost to the state's economy. Or would it hurt the state's economy. And let's start with Senator mills. Well I think a lot of people disagree with Mr. Berkman and and his findings and I go back to that point that there were fewer new jobs created in California after the passage of Prop 13 than before. There's the additional consideration of what happened to inflation the inflation rate in the state of California has increased at a rate two percent higher than for the rest of the country. We have seen a number
of other things that have that have happened we've seen for example the decimation of the building industry and certainly Howard Jarvis and Proposition 13 are not responsible for that although we did raise some some costs and because of fees that were being imposed on builders It is not an important factor but there are mighty factors at work now and I differ with Howard as to what is the cause of inflation. I think the majority opinion among people who are supposed to know as far as causes inflation are concerned is that probably the most important single factor is the creation of new money by the banking system. That is why the Federal Reserve Board. Now that's not to say that's not a not a federal decision. It's a it's a federal decision with it with a with a profound impact. But the the the majority opinion today is certainly that's the most important single consideration in this terrible thing that's happened to us. And it can be proved I think by the fact that as you look back over the over the last 20 or 30 years and look at the at the depletion rate or how the currency has deteriorated in the course of any year it is related
to the increase in the number of dollars created by our credit system and by our banking system. And it is not related to the federal deficit the federal deficit simply hasn't hasn't been reflected. You don't see a high deficit in a high inflation rate but you just do see a situation where there's a lot of new new money created by the banking system and a high inflation rate. All of those years how would you answer this question. I disagree with him as we finish this. I disagree with that. I want to ask Senator then do you think Prop 9 will have a salutary effect on the economy or do you think it will hurt the economy. I think it will not have a salutary effect because it's going to put a lot of people out of work. And that Proposition 13 put a number of people out of work and did not create new jobs. I think this will have the same same effect is going to is going to create a situation where people who are gainfully employed in valuable programs librarians for example who are not to be going to be fired or let out. I mean that's right. All right. Senator know I mean Mr. Jarvis Senator Mr. Jarvis went to the
senator told the truth but not the whole truth. All right. What do you think they do when they print the money. Now the banks don't print the money the Fed prints of money. They have a lot. Why do they print Domonic say he stop there they print the money. What did they do with it. They pay off the deficits that government creates and the deficit requires that printing money because we've got a totally irresponsible Congress the United States and an irresponsible president and an irresponsible California legislature and an irresponsible California governor. We've got that that's our problem. So your answer to that question well what effect will it have on you. Well I'll tell you my answer to that is that Milton Friedman and Neil Jacoby and Arthur Laffer before Proposition 13 passed said the reason they all supported it they said it would vastly improve the economy of California. They said it would increase the personal income of the people of California six billion dollars a year. I said it will increase one billion dollars a year. The fact is it is increasing at 11 billion dollars a year. And
this is the latest report out of the Chase Bank that you spoke out. And so now these Jacoby's dead unfortunately. But Laffer is the one here and he predicts it probably at Jim that will increase 200000 new jobs. If Prop 9 passes. All right. Gentlemen I have several questions here and if we can move along with them maybe we can get a couple of more in here that are important questions. The nation is witnessing 20 percent prime rate 18 percent inflation rate 16 percent mortgage rates and economists are now entering say we're now entering a recession. The president has said to the Congress a proposed new federal budget which purports to balance the federal budget including cuts in the state Schering program. So the question is will the effects of Proposition 9 on California be better or worse on taxpayers. In view of the general prevailing national economic condition and let's start with Senator Senator on that Senate OK. Well to be to begin with I don't think that the changes in federal spending will have any substantial effect.
What they're talking about is saving 25 billion dollars and Howard and I have a basic difference of opinion as to what the effect of that is because our federal now. Yeah. So you know all of us by the way that the legislature doesn't spend and spend any more than it takes and is not allowed to understand what we're on the question of the prevailing economic conditions of Congress has been spending more than it's been taking in and that has been a contributory factor to inflation but probably not a very important one. And the reason I say that is because they're talking about cutting out $25 billion in spending and taking away the revenue sharing and so forth which will take money out of programs education and so forth in California anyway. But that $25 billion is only about 1 percent of the gross national product which runs something like two and a half trillion. And I don't think anyone should expect that there will be a substantial effect of that. That has chiefly the the public relations benefit of indicating that the government is beginning to be serious about the problem. All right let's get back to the basic problem is the
problem with what the banks are doing. And I should say specifically the Federal Reserve Bank. It isn't as though the government prints money by running it off because the amount of currency in circulation isn't anything it doesn't relate to the amount of amount of dollars in circulation. I don't know what the figure is whether it's whether you think that the economic prevailing economic conditions will have a negligible effect as you consider the effects of Prop 9. I don't think that Prop 9 will have will have a measurable effect. I don't think Proposition 13 being of violence by measurable effect because there are too many forces at work and who we shouldn't count on on anything of that nature. It will be negligible in the face of what the government is doing relative to. Relative to the inflation problem the amount of money it's willing to allow to be created to go into circulation. The the the rates that they're going to be charging for mortgages and so forth are all going to be of 100 times more important than Proposition 9 on the state of the economy. If you could shorten your answer I would. The first saying that we're not going to have a balanced budget or a tax cut in Washington. We're going to have the biggest fraud frogland tax rates in the history of the world. The oil
windfall profits tax would all be paid by the consumers and not a nickel by not a nickel by the oil companies. That's number one. So that's a that's a real fraudulent deal. I forgot about the other part of the question the other part of the economic team and the terror of the politicians. How does that impact on the politicians and the press can talk us into a depression. California won't have won the rest of the nation because of what we're doing here that they'll have a recession and we won't so I I'm rather optimistic on the side. I do notice that when you raise taxes you create unemployment and when you lower taxes you create employment. Now Jim it doesn't bother me whether we have a recession or not. From that point what you're telling us is that it's better not to put this much money in the working man's pocket don't past 9 because he'll have $22 a month more than he has. That's what you're saying. And because he'll have $22 a month the government will be in trouble. Well he's more important than the legislature.
All right gentlemen we are coming near the end so I'm going to ask you each to come up with a minute and a half a minute and a half from the summary. Let's start with you a minute and a half summary. Senator Mitchell The thing that concerns me about it is what I started out to describe as my concern and that is that the basic benefits do go to the wealthy people. We're not talking about taking twenty two dollars away from working people or giving it to them because this thing is going to cost them money very likely if they have to move. If they lose their job and have to move someplace else or get a better job by the time we bought the house and paid all the increased fees that we're going to be loaded on that new house because government's going to have to be going more and more to fees they'll pay more than that. Someone like me with kids in college I'm going to be paying more in tuition than all I'll ever say from this. I'm going to come up behind the average citizen is going to come out behind the person who's going to come out of what is a fellow who only gets three weeks on the Riviera and all he's going to get for it I'll be paying for it by paying for for the education of my children and the old people will be paying for it through a loss of benefits.
Kids who want to use the libraries will be paying for it because libraries will be open as long as we've been open in the past. It's going to be a burden upon the average citizen that benefits from the legitimate the services that government provides. And it's going to be benefiting the people who are at the top. All right. Please keep it down. More than a minute and a half. Well I think you said it was said in all honesty and absolutely dead wrong. The thing that's wrong with the country today is over taxation. Every person out there that works for a living today including a senator's salary and mine every nickel he makes. January February March April May 2 the 10th of June goes for taxes. Now a machinist makes a hundred dollars you base fifty five dollars for taxes and $45 for his living. At the end of December he is broke and when he's broke you don't have any money when you don't have any money. Part of that system of taxation in the United States is manufacturing poor people and the United States faster than the capitalistic system can rescue them from the politicians.
Thank you very much gentlemen it has been a very stimulating discussion for both sides of it and we hope that people will have an opportunity to make that decision and get registered to vote. It's been a very stimulating discussion and an issue that only has 49 words to state it and you can argue about it for many many many hours. The voters of California all 10 million of them will have that choice to make when they walk into the polling places on June 3rd. Proposition 9 to be decided in June. This has been a special broadcast for public television on Proposition 9 with Howard Jarvis and state senator James Armorel's Jim Cooper. Thanks for being with us. On. Our.
- Voter's Pipeline
- The Changing Face of Television
- Producing Organization
- PBS SoCaL
- Contributing Organization
- PBS SoCaL (Costa Mesa, California)
- AAPB ID
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/221-41mgqxhs).
- This episode of Voter's Pipeline looks at Proposition 9 a California ballot initiative which would reduce income tax, remove the business inventory tax, and index income tax to the California Consumer Price Index.
- The Changing Face of Television is an hourlong special which looks at the evolution of cable television.
- Voter's Pipeline is a talk show hosted by Jim Cooper and featuring conversations with politicians and experts about local and state politics.
- Talk Show
- Politics and Government
- Copyright 1980
- Media type
- Moving Image
Director: Johnson, Kent
Guest: Liptak, Greg
Guest: Booth, Ethel
Guest: Wilson, Pam
Guest: Landres, Helyne
Guest: Cashoty, Jennifer
Guest: Lauer, Peter
Guest: Jarvis, Howard
Guest: Mils, James
Host: Cooper, Jim
Producing Organization: PBS SoCaL
- AAPB Contributor Holdings
Identifier: AACIP_1115 (AACIP 2011 Label #)
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
- Chicago: “Voter's Pipeline; The Changing Face of Television,” 1980-04-10, PBS SoCaL, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed August 20, 2019, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_221-41mgqxhs.
- MLA: “Voter's Pipeline; The Changing Face of Television.” 1980-04-10. PBS SoCaL, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. August 20, 2019. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_221-41mgqxhs>.
- APA: Voter's Pipeline; The Changing Face of Television. Boston, MA: PBS SoCaL, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_221-41mgqxhs