00:00:01.340 - 00:00:27.580

Yeah, yeah, This is one of the most charming traditions of the season, and it's captured in Christmas Tree by Spode Christmas Tree dinnerware by Spode to put on your table and enjoy all through the holidays. Christmas Tree Giftware by Spode So you can share this tradition

00:00:27.580 - 00:00:50.720

with friends. Christmas Tree Dinnerware and Giftware by Spode Charming Come Find Christmas Tree by Spode at Granite Brothers. Jim Coz Holiday of Savings begins with the opening of our newest Jenko in Dublin, located on Amador Plaza Road. All stores joined in the grand opening celebration. Katie

00:00:50.720 - 00:01:09.700

View, Oakland San Francisco How will the Democratic governor, Jerry Brown and Republican Lieutenant Governor Mike Curb get along for the next four years? Senator Peter Bear of the second District in the state Senate is here to answer that question. Any other questions that you might have

00:01:09.700 - 00:01:24.520

about the November 7th election on open line? Assemblyman Willie Brown, representing the 17th District of the State Assembly, is expected but is not yet here. We'll see if he can make it tonight. Our number is 8392222 So call Senator Bear right now with your questions on

00:01:24.520 - 00:02:06.710

open line Mm Rather mhm. Mhm. Yeah. No. Okay. Mhm. Think that everything. Good evening, and welcome to open line. I'm your host, Johnny Barnes, Selvin. And it's very good to be back on open line after a three month long maternity leave.

00:02:06.720 - 00:02:22.350

I'm now the proud mother of ASEAN Zelic, our director here in community affairs. Channel two puts it a bouncing baby boy. Adam Barnes, Selvin this evening, we have a special hour long open line. Assemblyman Willie Brown, a Democrat representing the 17th district of the State Assembly,

00:02:22.350 - 00:02:37.790

is expected. He's not it here. And Republican Senator Peter Bear of the second District State Senate is here tonight to give you his analysis of the November 7th election because open line is running half an hour longer than usual tonight. The all the people programme on

00:02:37.790 - 00:02:51.480

how to control your emotions will be seen half an hour later than usual. So be sure to stay tuned after open line for all the people. And that will air at 11. 30 again. Senator Bear is here to give you his perceptions on the November 7th

00:02:51.480 - 00:03:09.340

election, so please call him. Our number is 8392222 Good evening, Senator. Where? I'm glad you could be here. And I'm sure in my heart of hearts that Assemblyman Brown is going to make it before the program's over. My first question is that one that I announced

00:03:09.340 - 00:03:25.940

in the tes. Um, how do you think our Democratic governor and our Republican lieutenant governor are going to get along for the next four years? Well, now, I'll tell you, Johnny, no one's ever been able to predict the governor when he acts alone. And when you

00:03:25.940 - 00:03:43.630

add a completely unknown to the mix of uncertainty, I suppose the answer is that my prediction is as good as yours the prediction of any of our viewers. Uh, but you asked me for it. And so here here goes. Uh, I think they're probably going to

00:03:43.630 - 00:04:05.600

have a romance which will wind up with a marriage of convenience where neither of them are are going to get in each other's way purposefully. And I think the governor can probably pursue whatever ambition he may have. Which, of course, is quite a secret. Uh, without

00:04:05.610 - 00:04:21.070

undue stress, I have another question. Who is Mike Curb now you're a Republican. Maybe you can tell us. We know he's an executive from a record company, and he's made his way into the Republican Party. Who is our lieutenant governor? Oh, I don't know who he

00:04:21.070 - 00:04:45.760

is, and I don't think most people know who he is. He obviously has no track record except for having been very successful in his record business. And so asking whom he is, we'll have to a weight time in regard to how he acts and so forth.

00:04:45.770 - 00:05:04.290

Unless one wants to say that because of the campaign that he he ran, that he's either damned or not damned, that's That's another question. Okay, do you think that he will? Seriously, Because when the governor is out of the state, he has the right to sign

00:05:04.300 - 00:05:20.800

bills and to appoint people to office? Do you think he will seriously try to get in the way of Governor Brown's presidential ambitions? No, I think really. I put it a little ahead of that. I'd say if he wants to Kenny, Okay, because if you can't,

00:05:20.810 - 00:05:38.500

then the question becomes irrelevant, and I would suggest that there are all sorts of ways in which, uh, the movement of important bills to the corner office for the governor's signature can be adjusted to allow for the governor of being either in the state outside the

00:05:38.500 - 00:05:59.550

state, uh, and so forth. And that's also true, particularly appointment. So I think that the general feeling that curb was well named, uh, is, uh, mistaken. Okay, we have calls coming in right now, so let's get on with it. Good evening. You're on open line. Oh,

00:06:00.040 - 00:06:18.930

um, do you think Jerry Brown, when we revert back to his old policy of politicians and indecisiveness for the next term Yeah, well, I think Jerry Brown has proved himself peculiarly adapted to the winds of change. In fact, so well, adapted that he doesn't even have

00:06:18.930 - 00:06:39.120

to wet his finger and lift it up to see from which direction the winds are coming. So I think that he will continue his Dyna Flo ability to adjust two what he believes the public wants, And he will do it and you won't know it. Very

00:06:39.120 - 00:06:55.410

interesting answer. Does that answer your question? Thank you. Um, I have another question. This this election was an interesting one. In that party lines were crossed all over the place. Do you think that this election signifies the end of the party system. How is the party

00:06:55.410 - 00:07:14.190

system going to be affected? Well, you know, in California we've never really had a strong party system. Uh, the Democrats may be in power, but I think they've come into power for all sorts of reasons other than simply being Democrats. Very often. Because I think my

00:07:14.190 - 00:07:30.570

party I happen to be a Republican has had a death wish. So I don't think it's going to change much. And I just feel that, uh, the parties are perhaps going to be a little bit of matched, and it will make some modest change in the

00:07:30.570 - 00:07:48.420

party system for the better. I see. Thank you. We have another call. Good evening. Your on open line? Yes. I have a question for the senator or rather, the man that function as a senator. So Well, thank you. With all of our thoughts towards environmental protection

00:07:48.420 - 00:08:05.610

and everything. How come nobody does anything about cleaning up the campaign signs afterwards? And why doesn't somebody introduced a bill making it mandatory to devote some of the campaign funds to clean up afterwards? Well, that's a very good question. and it's never been addressed on a

00:08:05.610 - 00:08:24.720

statewide level. But it has been addressed from county to county, and I believe some counties have an ordinance requiring justice. It should be done, and it seems to me that responsible candidates should cause it to be done themselves. I know when I campaigned, we always remove

00:08:24.720 - 00:08:40.760

the signs. Of course, it's more difficult, I suppose, if you're a loser to go around removing your signs, but I think it should be done because they are a blot on the landscape and some of them remain and remain and remain. And and it's too bad

00:08:41.000 - 00:08:57.840

this is why mandatory legislation should be imposed. I agree. I couldn't agree more. I believe in Oklahoma. When I was there, they had such a law passed. It worked quite well. Here's what I would suggest. You have a state senator and you have an assemblyman. Write

00:08:57.840 - 00:09:14.050

them a letter because you'll find that many bills that we carry. And I'm sure my friend Willie would agree with me have been the direct result of suggestions in written form to your legislator. Well added little comments that people are seeing on television right now. They

00:09:14.060 - 00:09:29.520

spur someone else to join me in writing. Let me also indicate to that caller, if he is a San Francisco resident, we do have a We do have an ordinance in the city that requires that those of us who put up campaign signs to take them

00:09:29.520 - 00:09:46.590

down within a reasonable period of time following the election and that's by local ordinance. And so not only can he use his assemblyman or his senator to do that, but he can also use his local legislative bodies. And I assume that I just wrecked her show.

00:09:46.590 - 00:10:04.370

Uh, introduce me. Anyway, you're not a stranger way to anyone. But the fact is, and I'm sure that Johnny will welcome. She was anxious. Assemblyman Brown and I will stop. And I want you to that. More as you can see through the magic of television. Assemblyman

00:10:04.370 - 00:10:18.300

Willie Brown. The 17th district is here with us. Now. I'd like to welcome you to the programme. Thank you. Glad you could make it. Okay. Um, we were, uh I have some more questions I would like to ask him. Thank you for your call. Um, and

00:10:18.310 - 00:10:33.140

since you're here, I'd like to put this one What do you think? Um, this election means as far as a racial implications for disadvantaged people and and for racial minorities. Why, frankly, I'd like to put that to both of you. I think it's frankly going to

00:10:33.140 - 00:10:50.360

be tougher, uh, in the forthcoming session of the Legislature, uh, to put together the kind of programs and kind of packages that would benefit, uh, low income people that would benefit racial minorities in this state simply for the simple reason that people are really, uh into

00:10:50.740 - 00:11:09.570

into the business of spending limitations there into, um, no taxes there into smaller governments there into eliminating programs. And they're into not really being their brother's keeper, As has been the philosophy in this country for a long period of time. At the head of my own

00:11:09.570 - 00:11:26.850

party, we have a governor who and talks glowingly about lower and expectations and about the government not being able to do anything for you, Um, that you have to do things for yourself and that he is not. He's not going to be identified as a spender.

00:11:26.860 - 00:11:51.810

So it's a very, very potentially a very difficult day for legislation to benefit persons in that category. Senator Bear. Unfortunately, I have to agree with my friend. The the difficulty with Proposition 13 was at least what I tried to point out during the campaign that where

00:11:51.810 - 00:12:12.250

you restrict spending beyond a certain level, you always are doing it at the expense of the poorest and most disadvantaged or those who haven't got a powerful lobby. And so this is just another way of agreeing with Assemblyman Brown. Okay, another question. Is it possible in

00:12:12.250 - 00:12:29.060

this election to discern any coherent, consistent, consistent message concerning taxes and public service? We voted in Prop. 13 in June, and then we re elected Governor Brown in November, and Governor Brown, as we all know, did not support, at least initially. Well, I don't think the

00:12:29.060 - 00:12:47.300

public knows that I really don't. I think elderly younger would echo my comment. In that regard, Younger did not receive the benefit of having been at least a lukewarm support of Prop. 13, uh, prior to its passage, Jerry Brown was was an opponent of Prop. 13

00:12:47.310 - 00:13:04.640

as Peter Bear was an opponent of Prop. 13 and Willie Brown was an opponent of Prop. 13. The difference in Brown and Bears opposition to Proposition 13 is that we didn't become the chief advocate of it The day that it passed at 801 I suspect that

00:13:04.650 - 00:13:23.320

my governor became a convert. He really has a commitment to absolutely obey everything the voters says and he will tell you that. And he proceeded to implement Proposition 13 or at least attempt to implement Proposition 13 in a spirit more militant on the question and more

00:13:23.320 - 00:13:40.450

of an activist on the question than any of the proponents of Proposition 13 ever were. And so in this election, Jerry Brown got the benefit of the tax revolt, and Younger lost the benefit of the tax revolt. Uh, because Younger didn't, um, didn't do the same

00:13:40.450 - 00:13:57.590

kind of thing as quickly enough. I think Howard Jarvis put it best when he said in a post election post November 7th election that if L V. Younger had just had the good sense to really embrace Proposition 13, there might have been an attempt to unseat

00:13:57.600 - 00:14:15.920

Jerry Brown. Jerry Brown genuinely believes that the voters, when they spoke visa, the Proposition 13 had in mind only spending limitations. I'm not sure that's what the voters had in mind. I don't know if Senator Bear agrees with me. Senator bear with you. Well, I think

00:14:15.920 - 00:14:36.970

about you. Yes. I think that Governor Brown got their fastest with the mostest. Absolutely. And in addition, the Legislature, which did the only possible thing we could do. Ah, and did it, I think, with a good deal of a class in a very short period of

00:14:36.980 - 00:14:57.180

time and everyone getting together to avert what was clearly a fiscal crisis. Got no credit for that at all, because it's generally regarded as the feet of the governor. And the governor had both feet firmly planted behind Proposition 13. But neither of them were And the

00:14:57.180 - 00:15:13.750

Assembly or the Senate. On the other hand, you think he really strode the body like a colossus, but he didn't. But perhaps that's such a well guarded secret that no one will believe it. Okay, well, thank you both for your answers. We're going to go to

00:15:13.750 - 00:15:40.430

a break right now. We'll be right back to answer more of your questions to stay with us. That mm, mhm. Welcome back to open line. Uh, tonight we're having an analysis of the November 7th election, and we have a something Brown and Senator bear here to

00:15:40.430 - 00:15:57.840

answer your questions. So please call them once again. Our numbers are our number is 8392222 Good evening. Your on open line. Thank you. My question is about the Proposition seven, the death penalty initiative. Wasn't that the very thing that the U. S. Supreme Court ruled was

00:15:57.840 - 00:16:17.430

unconstitutional? And if it is, how do we proceed from there? No. The Supreme Court has not spoken on the contents of Proposition seven. Proposition seven is an extension, an attempt to extend the existing death penalty in California. And it has all of the constitutional safeguards that

00:16:17.440 - 00:16:32.510

the Supreme Court has previously required. Except that there are some vagueness in the vagueness centers around the question of whether or not you can put somebody to death. If, in fact, in the course of a homicide, some racial slur is used. That's one of the I

00:16:32.510 - 00:16:47.300

think, probably the most graphic example of that area, which must ultimately be interpreted. But as it relates to whether or not the Supreme Court ruled on the issue No, the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue. Okay, Thank you very much. Does that answer your

00:16:47.300 - 00:17:06.250

question then? Thanks a lot. We have another caller. Good evening. You're on open line. Yes. Well, you question is really directed to both these gentlemen, and it regards Propositions five and six. And my feeling in the voting booth was that both of these propositions had to

00:17:06.250 - 00:17:29.660

do with right of specific groups in both cases. But I would like your feelings on these two questions. Well, suppose I take that. I think both the Smoking Initiative five and the Homosexual Initiative both dealt with rights, and I don't think there's any question about that.

00:17:30.240 - 00:17:51.050

Uh, although the right so far as as non smokers were concerned, apparently we're in conflict first with the tobacco industry. Quite obviously, which financed the campaign to the extent of 99% and then apparently were in conflict with watching the smokers saw as their rights being restricted,

00:17:51.640 - 00:18:09.280

and consequently, that went down to defeat. I personally was very much in favor of it, voted for it. Although I used to smoke a good deal. Uh, I think that that's that's the situation. I was completely pleased, as a matter of fact, delighted with the maturity

00:18:09.280 - 00:18:33.890

of the large majority of voters who understood that once you start to restrict the rights of a given class of prisons because of their lifestyle habits, that you're literally moving the first fatal step towards the fascism or communism. And so I was pleased that at least

00:18:33.890 - 00:18:54.860

we here in California understood this. Even if perhaps Florida didn't. Okay, do you think Governor Reagan's coming out in support of Yes, I think that, yes, I think that helped. And I think that people on both sides, including the Episcopal Church, in the form of leadership

00:18:55.540 - 00:19:14.160

and I think the Catholic Church as well, all very much all wrapped their arms around what was simply proper. And so it made me very proud to be an American in that instance, and with proper five. Why, why do you think? And with all aside from

00:19:14.160 - 00:19:30.710

the fact that there was an awful lot of money put behind defeating Proposition five no smoking proposition, Uh, what kind of thinking do you think went into California's defeating it? As as we did? I think when you pour this amount of money, this obscene quantity of

00:19:30.710 - 00:19:49.680

money into the media against a very small amount of money and mount by buying a very professional campaign that you have an advantage, which is simply overwhelming. And it sweeps everything before it is like a great coma landing on a beach. And I think that's very

00:19:49.680 - 00:20:07.050

unfortunate. One of the great problems. The initiative system, which has its benefits as well. Okay, cinnamon brown. Do you have any comment on that? What about the interference of government? What do you think this has to do? You think that had an influence on defeating proper,

00:20:07.050 - 00:20:34.190

uh, five? Well, I think that that the arguments against Prop. Five and that centered around more governmental regulations had some bearing, uh, the true libertarians. One example would may strongly object to people smoking, but would never empower the law to regulate it. They place it in

00:20:34.190 - 00:20:51.830

the same category as Prohibition as it relates to alcohol there. There are some justifiable reasons for some limitations on smoking. I don't smoke and I never have smoked. And I'm offended by, and restaurants and places of that nature where people are engaged in spoken and I

00:20:51.830 - 00:21:08.190

tend to avoid those establishments. Uh, I tend to cheer when people say when you go into theater. You can only smoke in the lobby or someplace of that nature, or I tend to cheer that. But I'm not sure I would ever support a governmental regulations to

00:21:08.190 - 00:21:23.320

do it. We've had attempts similar to proper Proposition five in the California Legislature. I might add, if what we've had in the Legislature had been on the ballot, I frankly think it would have passed because what we had the Legislature was far more operative and far

00:21:23.320 - 00:21:39.330

more rational. What was on the ballot? Uh, you could today, for an example, smoke in this facility. And tomorrow If there was a cello solo, you couldn't smoke. If it was a rock concert, you could If it was a jazz concert, maybe. Well, those kinds of,

00:21:39.340 - 00:21:56.950

uh, indefinite decisions placed, uh, created a problem for the advocates of prop five. And I think they come back with a simple, straight no smoking section in the law. I think it would pass, and I don't think any amount of money, but I think they probably

00:21:56.960 - 00:22:16.360

spend 10 times as much. I don't think any amount of money would stop that. Okay, I'm curious. Now, how do you think our Legislature is going to be affected by recent Republican Games. Oh, I think hardly at all, to be truthful, but I could be mistaken.

00:22:16.740 - 00:22:32.500

When shove comes to push during the budget session, the governor may be induced to be look more kindly at one or two of the Republican votes in an effort to get two thirds majority in the Assembly of the Senate. Of course, he can't. You can make

00:22:32.510 - 00:22:52.320

overtures, but he can't actually offer anything because that's a felony. Understand it? But I also should add that it's one that has never been brought against anyone in the history of the state, so I don't think there's much risk there. I think that the liberal Democratic

00:22:52.330 - 00:23:12.430

faction of the party has been virtually disenfranchised by virtue of the 100% gain at the statewide office level for the Republicans and the seven increase over what they had in the last session of the Legislature. An example of what I mean by that would be when

00:23:12.430 - 00:23:26.780

Ken Meat was there and we had exactly 54 votes. Ken Meet refused to vote for the budget, and so did the Republicans, and as a result of that he was able to force some concessions out of his own party far more liberal than they would have

00:23:26.780 - 00:23:44.310

ever desired to give. I think that the Qin meets, uh, and the influence that they can meet would have had with only one vote has been totally dissipated. And I think now that the process will be far more orderly and it'll be far cleaner. But for

00:23:44.310 - 00:24:01.180

those of us who are the so called liberal activists, I think we're in, uh, not such great shape. In the last session of the Legislature, we produced a tax bill, um, authored by Senator Bear. And that tax bill became, uh, pretty much the background and the

00:24:01.180 - 00:24:17.910

movement for Proposition eight, which the voters rejected. However, it was far superior to anything we've ever done in the field of taxes. And we did that in our house, mainly with Democratic votes. This time, if we were similarly situated, we'd have to make far greater concessions

00:24:18.180 - 00:24:31.980

in a Senator Peter Bears Bill. Then we had to make last time around. I chair the Committee on Revenue and Taxation, and I could pretty much do as I pleased with that committee simply because I had such overwhelming numbers. Now I'll have to be a bit

00:24:31.980 - 00:24:47.040

more respectful of Mr Parolo's views of whomever the majority media happens to be. And I suspect that in that Senator Bear, you recall last year when we were working with your bill that became Proposition eight, we kept going back and forth about how much money we

00:24:47.040 - 00:25:02.280

put in the middle, uh, middle income and middle class category. I think that there would be a greater emphasis on that now. Then there was when we were there together. We did what we thought was principal, and right now we have to compromise even more. But

00:25:02.280 - 00:25:16.030

I think that's all very true. I hadn't thought of it quite in that context. But I do think the liberal wing of the party both in the Senate and Assembly side, has suffered. And, uh, it is true that Senate Bill run was a compromise in and

00:25:16.030 - 00:25:35.770

of itself. In my judgment, it got weaker and weaker with each amendment. Of course, I have many access to grind grind. You don't grind you. What do you do with oxygen anyway, boy, anyway? Sure. And the Republicans also are much more militant and much more banded

00:25:35.780 - 00:25:53.880

together on the assembly side than on the Senate side. I think that's obviously true. Okay. Thank you. We have a caller. Good evening. You're on open line. Yes. Uh, my question is, this has to do with C. And apparently it's a fairly touchy subject because I

00:25:53.880 - 00:26:12.000

didn't hear any candidates mentioned it during the last political campaign. Either one of the gentlemen there can come in on it. And anyway, we're an elderly couple and we have Social Security. Our total income in our own home live in the home. And somewhere down the

00:26:12.000 - 00:26:28.060

line they took a figure of $577. And when we applied for S S, I we were granted the difference between there are total Social Security and the figure of $577 Come the first of July. We've got an increase in Social Security and also a slight increase

00:26:28.060 - 00:26:49.780

in SC. But after Proposition 13 passed, they cut her f s. I back not to what it was before, but less than it was before. And the overall picture is that we got an increase from $577 a month between my wife and I 2 $594.40 which

00:26:49.780 - 00:27:11.190

makes not quite a $17 a month increase between the two of us. How can the lawmakers qualify this, which affected 700 people in the state of California? They aged the wind and the elderly and then give themselves a 10 or 12% raising wages, whichever it was

00:27:11.500 - 00:27:30.620

where between two people. We got a $14.40 increase. How can they qualify that and what My big question is, What do the SSC recipients have to look forward to come next July, when, no doubt we'll get a Social Security security increase. Are we going to get

00:27:30.630 - 00:27:45.300

cut back? As much as we got increase in Social Security. So we get no increase or what do we have to look forward to? Okay. Thank you, Senator. Bear with you. Turn it over. You see, I'm retiring from office. So real position here and, you know,

00:27:45.300 - 00:28:03.020

to my good friend Willie was from that arguing that he's an expert, but he probably knows more than I. Well, let me indicate to the caller that I'm rather optimistic about the prospects for S S I and Social Security recipients in the forthcoming legislative session Last

00:28:03.020 - 00:28:23.010

session we imposed in our bailout money SB 154 a prohibition against any increase for anyone, literally. And we discovered, to our chagrin, frankly, that the judges and the legislatures didn't come within the framework of that prohibition. Only public employees and welfare recipients and people at the

00:28:23.020 - 00:28:37.130

category. So I'm frankly embarrassed to even be attempting to answer your question in view of the fact that it appears as if we benefited the judges and we benefit ourselves and didn't take care of people who are really in need. There are many of us, including

00:28:37.130 - 00:28:50.980

Senator Bear, that desire to have a provision in the law that would have allowed for the total increase granted by the federal government to be passed on to the recipients in the state. There are some of us that even want to go further. We wanted to

00:28:50.990 - 00:29:07.280

add a small amount from the state, which would have, uh, offered, I suppose, about 2.5% from the state and maybe 3.5%. So from the feds, which would have given welfare recipients in the state whether the s s i o village assistance and what have you, uh,

00:29:07.290 - 00:29:23.930

an increase. Unfortunately, however, and every version of every effort we made every vehicle. When we used about three to attempt to do it, it was defeated for one reason or another. A combination of persons running for reelection in the Senate or people candidates for statewide office

00:29:23.930 - 00:29:40.590

i e. The governor, or a dogmatic rule that some of the members of the law house of the Legislature adopted killed all of those things. But I think you can be optimistic about the prospects for 19, 70 70 79 session only on the basis that all

00:29:40.590 - 00:29:53.780

of us have given lip service to the idea that we at least ought to allow the federal pass on pass through to come to you in terms of an increase. And frankly, I think that will happen. Okay, thank you very much for your question. Once again,

00:29:53.780 - 00:30:17.930

we're going to a break right now, but we will be back. And so stay with us with and call us right now with your questions. Again. The number is 8392222 on open line. See you in a minute. Mm. Welcome back to open line. I'd like to

00:30:17.930 - 00:30:30.770

remind all of you that all the people which normally begins its air time right now is going to come on at 11. 30. Uh, and the subject tonight is how to control your emotions on all the people. So be sure to stay tuned. Good evening. You're

00:30:30.770 - 00:30:46.310

an open line. Uhh. Do you believe that the majority of people of this state voted for Jerry Burn to the governor of the state of California for the next four years? Or do you believe that they voted for him to be a candidate for the president

00:30:46.310 - 00:31:05.220

of the United States for four years? And if Kerry Brown, uh, it gives all this time and effort to becoming an efficient governor? Why worry about my curb? Well, now, that's a very good question. My friend William was saying that he was a little frightened about

00:31:05.220 - 00:31:22.200

all the questions this evening because they were a little over sophisticated for us. But this is a good question. I would I would say this. There was a poll taken which indicated that while people had voted for Jerry Brown was governor, a certain percentage of them

00:31:22.200 - 00:31:42.470

who had would not have voted for him as president and didn't want him to move on. Uh, that's as far as the pole lamps. So I would say that we voted him in as governor. And if he's going to become president, that's his business. And he's

00:31:42.470 - 00:31:58.090

not on his own by any means. Because I'm sure there are a certain number of persons who would strongly espoused his cause. I wouldn't happen to be one of them. Assemblyman Brown. Well, I assume that Jerry Brown will accept the votes of the people of State

00:31:58.090 - 00:32:16.470

of California and in there choice of re elected him, and I think he will respect those votes. But I don't think that his respect for those votes would prohibit his considering himself as a candidate in 1980. If he thinks it's wise is. The other part of

00:32:16.470 - 00:32:31.270

that question was, why worry about Mike Curve? Well, I frankly, I Frankly, don't worry about Mike Curb. I don't know the gentleman. Uh, I've not had the pleasure of meeting him yet. I anticipate meeting in there because I think I'm gonna sue him on behalf of

00:32:31.270 - 00:32:48.520

the current lieutenant governor or something that occurred during the course of the campaign. So I will meet him under some unusual circumstances. I've read a considerable amount about Mr Curb, particularly in some of the publications that have been very critical of Mr Curb. I don't think

00:32:48.520 - 00:33:03.660

that mhm such sources of the best place to find the proper information about an individual. Uh, I had some very, uh, misgivings about Ronald Reagan until I, of course, met him. And, uh, I frankly found during those years when we had to work together, that he

00:33:03.660 - 00:33:18.220

was a fairly reasonable, irrational person in the negotiating room. What he set out on the stump was substantially different from how he conducted himself on the inside. If Mr Curb demonstrates that same kind of ability, then I assume that Mr Curb will have the same commitment

00:33:18.230 - 00:33:33.120

and the same involvement that we've had in the process of trying to deliver good government. If we find Mr Curb not to be in that category, I suspect that the voters will retire. Mr Curb. That's what they've done to most people that they found, uh, after

00:33:33.120 - 00:33:51.780

a opportunity to demonstrate ability they found to be lacking. Play Senator Bill, That's I have nothing to say. I think everybody who has just been elected comes into office and is entitled to a presumption of innocence. It may be rebuttable, indeed it could be, but I'm

00:33:51.780 - 00:34:09.150

perfectly willing to accept Mr Curb and hope for the sake of California and good government that he acts in a reasonable and rational manner. Thank you very much. Thank you for your call. Good evening. Your on open line. Mhm. Senator and Assemblyman, I'm wondering we've been

00:34:09.150 - 00:34:26.380

talking about five and prop six, and it seems like Prop six has kind of been sucked into the carpet. But if if you could comment on what you think is the future direction of gay activity and gay rights and Californian, possibly the nation, I'd like to

00:34:26.380 - 00:34:47.000

hear your comments on that. In terms of the future legislation that might be an active. That's another good question. Let me respond. If I mean, I think that Proposition six it wasn't so much a reaffirmation of of preference for gay rights in the state of in

00:34:47.000 - 00:35:05.150

this country. I think Proposition six was very anti democratic. It was very much anti American and regardless of against what group, it would have been directed. I think it would have generated the same kind of I hope that it would generate the same kind of a

00:35:05.150 - 00:35:21.280

negative vote that it did in such great numbers. As Senator Barry said earlier. I was very proud of the people of the state when they did not allow, um, what a person might be to interfere with whether or not that person does something that does not

00:35:21.280 - 00:35:34.770

do something in a seven, which would be prohibited clearly if a person is in a classroom, they should be teaching English or reading or mathematics or whatever they are hired to teach and not their lifestyle. And I think the people understood that. And I think the

00:35:34.770 - 00:35:51.940

people rejected, uh, any limitation upon any teachers conduct in that regard separate and distinct from being inside of the classroom. However, I think it probably would be a mistake to read that, uh, in such a fashion that one would assume the Legislature will in the next

00:35:51.940 - 00:36:10.120

session add uh, gay rights to those rights which are protected by the fair. Uh, fair political fair practices, uh, What is it, Fair. F E P. C Uh, I just don't think that would happen. Yes, I don't think it goes that I just don't think that

00:36:10.120 - 00:36:24.340

vote could be construed as going in that direction. Now that's what it does for the nation as what it does for the nation. However, I think it does, by virtue of the fact that Ronald Reagan said you should vote no, Jimmy Carter said. You should vote

00:36:24.340 - 00:36:42.890

no. Gerald Ford said You should vote no. Everybody with any degree of influence in this country virtually said You should vote no on any legislation of that nature and I think it will discourage people like John Briggs, whose ideas are basically divisive of the Democratic process,

00:36:42.890 - 00:37:00.210

not not helpful at all. I think it will dissuade people from moving in that direction. It will also cause lukewarm, committed persons to the idea of free speech to the idea of civil rights for everybody, uh, to come forward and say that it's not a political

00:37:00.210 - 00:37:16.500

liability to to speak out on things of this nature, and I think it did. It did make that statement and I think it did give that kind of encouragement, but it did not give a stamp of approval, uh, to remedial legislation to correct all of the

00:37:16.510 - 00:37:38.550

discriminatory practices against persons of that sexual preference. Yeah, I I think everything that he says is I would echo, I think. One other thing, though. And I think it's important that people who are gay and have this kind of lifestyle permit the issue. Two. Settle itself.

00:37:39.010 - 00:37:56.370

Let the dust settle the issue, settle, not be strident about it. Because I think there are rights. In fact, by the nature of public opinion are investing at present. But I think if they push too hard for every action, there's a reaction. And I think they

00:37:56.370 - 00:38:14.350

are ahead now. And I think it would be a great mistake for them to act in an over militant manner because I think it would do their proper cause. Disservice. Thank you. Thank you very much for your answers. Good evening. You're an open line. Listen to

00:38:14.360 - 00:38:36.390

growth too. And in them brown, as soon as a bear many years passed. We've heard that the taxes are going to be reduced mhm for the homeowner and all the taxpayers beer bill which contained 27 pages of things that I couldn't understand. I got a copy

00:38:36.390 - 00:39:01.070

of Petrus is off. I also got a copy of Travis's initiative, which is 13 covered one page. The most anyone can understand it, which they did, and we got a tax relief. Now, why should an outsider come in and in less than one year in one

00:39:01.070 - 00:39:27.750

page of material to convince the taxpayers to get themselves attacks relief and you fellas up sacrament I've been talking about for years and years. There's Bill was 27 pages of confusion, nothing. And what are you going to do from now? Okay, thank you. It was my

00:39:27.750 - 00:39:43.590

bill. I might mention this if you take any tax bill that you have ever seen or ever courtesy and expect to understand it not being a tax attorney, more power to you. I think the very reason it's so complex is that the subject doesn't lend itself

00:39:43.600 - 00:40:07.730

to the kind of simplicity that Proposition 13 was guilty of, and the fact is that it's going to create many more problems, then solutions in terms of the areas it doesn't cover or the areas it covers with great confusion. Now, there was. Yes, sir. Give some

00:40:07.730 - 00:40:22.940

relief. Well, we gave some relief. We can't go into what we gave. It wasn't as much quite obviously as was given by Proposition 13. It wasn't as much perhaps as I would have wanted, either. It wasn't as much as it turns out, as we might have

00:40:22.950 - 00:40:43.370

afforded if we had known at the time what the surplus, in fact was rather than what we were told it was. Yes, sir. Senator Petras was the bear a bill sponsored by Senator Patricia? That's the bill. Yes, Senator Petraeus's bill. Oh, now, Senator Petraeus's bill. It

00:40:43.380 - 00:41:00.970

was quite a horse of a different color. And what happened there was this Senator Petrus Bill. Pardon me. Didn't you carry on Senator Petraeus's bill? No, sir. I was not in favor of Senator Petro's bill, but it was a bill. Excuse me. Could you please leave

00:41:00.980 - 00:41:17.970

the senator? Time to respond. Oh, all I was going to say is this Senate Petrus had a bill where the major part of the surplus was to go back to persons of lower income. That bill failed. Then Santa Smith had a bill where the major part

00:41:17.980 - 00:41:35.600

of the surplus was to go back to persons in the general middle income bracket that failed. Now it failed on the Senate side because of an ideological split between the Democrats. 14, in favor of Senator Petrus is 14 in favor of Jerri Smith's approach with the

00:41:35.600 - 00:41:52.880

Republicans, I might add, doing very little to assist either way. So it was a long delay, and I think we all are subject to blame, and I'm perfectly willing to take my share of it. We came in my judgment with too little, too late, but it

00:41:52.880 - 00:42:08.600

wasn't for lack of effort because my bill was put in, in fact, three years before it passed in a predecessor bill, which did get through the Senate. It was held up in a committee, the chairman of whom is sitting with me here. And perhaps you can

00:42:08.600 - 00:42:21.040

explain that, but that, you know, that's the way it was. And I said, I think we all quite obviously have to take our share of the blame. There's plenty of blame to be apportioned out, so that's the fact. And let me add to what Senator Bear

00:42:21.040 - 00:42:42.410

said about the complicated nature of taxes. I'm simply appalled at anyone who would suggest that Proposition 13 offered a simplistic solution to the tax problem of the state. If the Legislature had not attempted to soften the blow of Proposition 13 and interpret Proposition 13, this state

00:42:42.420 - 00:43:01.490

would be an utter chaos today. And that's, you know, I'm not running for anything. It doesn't benefit me to say that, except to let you know that in the taxing process, 27 pages is a very minimal tax bill. Frankly speaking, taxes is a very complicated situation.

00:43:01.490 - 00:43:18.570

Everybody wants relief, and at the same time they want to make sure all the services that they personally desire are there. You can't have it both ways. In addition there, too. Under our system, taxes literally should be imposed upon people according to their ability to pay.

00:43:18.580 - 00:43:33.720

And when you start trying to define what constitutes ability to pay, you begin to run into not one page. You begin to run into many, many pages, the person who called earlier tonight about Social Security. You have to think in terms of those individuals when you

00:43:33.720 - 00:43:46.370

think in terms of taxation and when you think in terms of providing tax relief, you can say none of the income that they receive from S S I N S S P will be taxable. But what about the house they're living in? Do we remove the

00:43:46.370 - 00:44:00.210

property taxes from the house? And if we do, how do we pick up the cost of what that house formerly was paying for? That is still governmental services on the rolls. Well, that's right. And, you know, in terms of equity, I just would like to suggest

00:44:00.210 - 00:44:21.220

this to you that if you reduce property taxes by 57% across the board, you are presuming that IBM there's no better able to afford its property taxes than this widow with the small house living on a paltry income. So you really are not being, uh, all

00:44:21.220 - 00:44:41.350

right, Equitable in my judgment. Okay. And that's why Proposition eight. And that's why the Bear bill should be distinguished. Because when Senator Bear said that IBM got relief under Proposition 13, and that's what basically was implying. You ought to know that the largest benefit from Proposition

00:44:41.350 - 00:45:00.720

13 at present and for years to come will be two people who leased on a position to demand any relief and who would feel, I think, really like a high robber if they even asked the Legislature to grant them relief. Okay, with that, we're going to

00:45:00.720 - 00:45:25.580

have to take a break and stay with us, because we'll be back in just a moment. Mm. Mhm. Mhm. Yeah. It's been called the greatest meeting of land and water in the world. And this California heritage is being preserved by our state Department of Parks and

00:45:25.580 - 00:45:51.700

Recreation. This is Point Lobos State Reserve near Carmel. It's a unique outdoor museum, a showcase for both tidal areas and waves cascading into its surrounding rock areas. It's also the home of the state's first underwater ecological reserve. Mhm Point Lobos State Reserve is one of the

00:45:51.700 - 00:46:17.610

more than 200 units of our state park system, which celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. Our California heritage preserved for today and future generations by our state Department of Parks and Recreation. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Mm. Again, Welcome back to open line. We're in our last segment

00:46:17.620 - 00:46:36.900

that we do have time for some more calls, so please call us at 8392222 Again, we have another caller. Good evening. You're on open line. Good evening. Good evening. This is Andy over in Sparks, Nevada in Sparks, Nevada. Well, welcome, Andy. Do you have a question?

00:46:38.380 - 00:47:00.480

Join you so very much. I'd like to ask both gentlemen if they think an effective solution can be evolved between California and Nevada about state line. Oh, you think about State line? Yes. In terms of Lake Tahoe and the problem of Lake Tahoe. That's correct. Yes,

00:47:00.490 - 00:47:19.420

there is presently a negotiated settlement for which I think we may thank Charlie Warren, who is chairman of the of the Governor's Council on Environmental Quality, the President's Council. I beg your pardon? He, with the help of the present resources director UE, Johnson and a number

00:47:19.420 - 00:47:40.970

of others, including the top people, the governor of Nevada have come to a restructuring of this bistate compact, which determines development and how it shall occur both on the Nevada and California side of Lake Tahoe. And for the first time, I think we can say with

00:47:40.970 - 00:48:01.220

some assurance that this proliferation of gambling, casinos and smog and the problems of too many people in the basin will be reduced. It won't be eliminated. And the new casino sites of which there at least two, will be acquired by the federal government, No doubt for

00:48:01.220 - 00:48:17.270

a good high price. But at least it would do away with two casinos which everyone assumed would be constructed very soon. So, yes, I think we have reason for cautious optimism, because it's a very delicate matter, but I think it's reached the stage now where both

00:48:17.270 - 00:48:32.430

states agree. And I think we can we can look forward to a solution. I really do. Thank you. Would you like to comment on that? No, I think that's sufficient. Mm. Thank you. Excuse me. Did you have another question? No, I asked Mr. Brown had a

00:48:32.430 - 00:48:51.090

comment there. I simply would echo the senators coming. Okay, Thank you very much for your question. And thanks for calling. Long distance. Good evening. Your on open line? Yes. I have two questions here once, uh, first one to Mr Brown. How is the legislature going to

00:48:51.090 - 00:49:09.720

address itself to the point of funding special districts such as fire and recreation water? Uh, these are a few of the districts. I know that they made an attempt at the last minute. But how are they going to address them. No, we made more than an

00:49:09.720 - 00:49:29.260

attempt at the last minute what we did in SP 154 and was provide a certain bailout money for local communities. And we didn't really fully understand how adversely affected would be special districts that rely totally upon property taxes. When Proposition 13 came down, the pike, taking

00:49:29.260 - 00:49:47.780

57% away from some of the special district funds, literally wiped out those special districts altogether. We came back with Bill by Senator Gregorio, wherein we attempted to correct the problems that we created by 154 in terms of the bailout. We also provided a special loan fund

00:49:47.790 - 00:50:05.210

of I Think, something in the neighborhood of about $65 million that was engineered primarily by Senator Campbell out of Orange County, where $65 million was set aside to the Department of Finance to respond to any monies that the local legislative county body didn't share with local

00:50:05.210 - 00:50:21.350

districts. County bodies received block grants of money and they were supposed to give each one of the tax and agencies in each one of the authorities in a given community a share of the money to reduce the impact of Proposition 13, however, we discovered that that

00:50:21.350 - 00:50:39.090

wasn't sufficient because the fire districts came storming up to Sacramento demanded, and the flood districts in Los Angeles came storming up to Sacramento, demanding some additional aid. And then suddenly, special districts got hung up in the closing days of the legislative session and the mess immunizations

00:50:39.090 - 00:50:56.850

of the politics that go on. Uh, in those times now, Senator Nigel has taken the total responsibility to see that special districts are properly funded in the early part of the 1979 session of the Legislature. There will be an emergency piece of legislation, and this is

00:50:56.850 - 00:51:13.050

truly my opinion. But there will be an emergency piece of legislation to at least get the special districts back on keel and keep them in such a position that they will survive through the end of this year through the end of 1979 the budget year for

00:51:13.050 - 00:51:28.900

79. And then hopefully, in the beginning of the budget year of 79 80 we will have responded to the problem in the same manner we did for school districts and other kinds of districts under the 1 50 for bailouts. Well, I think I think what happened

00:51:28.960 - 00:51:51.520

was very unfortunate. I don't think it's a matter of fault. I think it does show that the system sometimes is misgauged because if the the bill which Mr Brown speaks of, had gone through conference exclusively devoted to assisting special districts with, I think around 125 125

00:51:51.520 - 00:52:05.890

minutes, the figure that occurs to me there's no doubt that that conference report would have been approved on the Senate side, at least no doubt in my mind. And I don't think in any other centres mind. But there have been a through the nature of the

00:52:05.890 - 00:52:23.580

conference. Other things added, which were individually meritorious, at least in my judgment. Many of them were not all of them. So I did vote for the conference report, but they had chilled off the chairman of the conference committee, Senator Gregorius. When he presented the report on

00:52:23.580 - 00:52:38.340

the Senate floor, there was some doubt in some of our minds that in fact, he was going to recommend it, which he did rather grudgingly. So I do believe that if Santa allegedly comes forward and I'm sure he will yeah, because he has been an activist

00:52:38.340 - 00:52:54.710

on the subject, Uh, particularly East Bay Regional Park District and all the other districts over there. Now, if it comes up with that bill, I am. Hopefully it will pass through the Legislature quickly and again optimistic the governor will sign it. I think he will. You

00:52:54.710 - 00:53:17.670

said you had two questions quickly. What is it? Second part of my question is for both with gentlemen and it's in regards to Prop 13. Uh huh. It seems that the Legislature and the governor has really not got received the message from the people because the

00:53:17.680 - 00:53:34.180

people voted on more local control and less control from the state. But what has actually happened with the passage of this bill that it seems to me that there is more controlled by the state rather than at the local level? Yes, I'm sure that's true. And

00:53:34.180 - 00:53:54.870

among the controls are that no local jurisdiction, for example, could increase the salary of any of its employees because the state had seen fit not to do so. That's a pretty strict control. Another control was that regardless of the status of the reserves of any local

00:53:55.250 - 00:54:13.980

city or county or special district or school district that one third of those reserves would have to be spent to entitle the local government to its share of the money. It's my belief, and I said so during the campaign. So I'm not changing my tune. They're

00:54:13.980 - 00:54:29.360

wherever money is sent from a so called higher level of government to the next level down, whether it be from the federal to the state governor of the state of the local government, it will always come with strings attached. Higher levels of government are always trying

00:54:29.360 - 00:54:46.920

to make puppets of what I consider to be their peers in the lower level of government. And this seems to be almost an inexorable fact of how government operates. And I I predicted this and I'm sorry about it, and I don't approve of it. But I

00:54:46.920 - 00:54:59.850

think you're going to find it continuing. Yes, thank you very much for your questions. We're going to go right along because we're almost out of time here on open line. Yes. My question is addressed to both of your guests. As everyone knows by now, Proposition 13

00:54:59.860 - 00:55:14.430

contained no relief. Renters in California. Can you hear everything we do hear you is this. It's not really for the rest of my question is on the ballot. In last week's election, there were rent rebates in several communities in Berkeley and Davis at one in San

00:55:14.430 - 00:55:28.250

Francisco, where I live at Lost, I think, basically because of a $500,000 media blitz by landlords. My question is, what relief to your speakers are You guessed c in store for people like me in California in the near future. Okay, thank you. And I'm going to

00:55:28.250 - 00:55:43.170

ask you to make your answers for you. I'll make mine brief. None. I share that view very little if any, simply because the same landlords who spend all that money on that side of the street will use a Howard Jarvis to make sure you don't receive

00:55:43.170 - 00:55:59.780

any relief. And when most of the people in this state or renters and they all voted yes on Proposition 13, I suspect that it comes out to be justice. That's such okay, well, I am just so delighted that you're both here and that you could make

00:55:59.780 - 00:56:19.110

it certainly been brown. And it's been an interesting evening, and I hope that all of those different factions that we now have in Sacramento are going to be able to get along. Do you have any hope for that? Yourselves, briefly, again, Very quickly. Republicans, I think.

00:56:19.210 - 00:56:37.350

I think. I think the system works and the system works because by hook or by crook, or perhaps by necessity or perhaps desire somehow there's enough cooperation cause things to happen. And I think this will continue. And that is the way it has to be. And

00:56:37.350 - 00:57:26.540

that's the way it always will be. Well, thank you very much, gentlemen. Thanks again. Thank you all for watching. I'm Johnny Barnes. Seven. I'll see you again next week, I think. Mhm. Mhm. Yes. Yeah, yeah. Mhm. Mm, Yeah. From

00:57:26.540 - 00:57:42.280

all over San Francisco, in the Bay Area, people are helping make David Varner the number one Chevy Man at the Marina. We did it and we'll do it again. David Varner, Chevrolet in Foster City. I did a baby Vonna Chevrolet in Marin. I did it too.

00:57:42.570 - 00:58:02.980

And here's just one of the good reasons for you to do it. At David Warner Chevrolet this week. Specialist 79 Impala for only 53. 20. Join the thousands of satisfied customers do it at David Varner, Chevrolet A lot of people think they're the champs, where we're

00:58:02.980 - 00:58:16.410

going after the title with the new store in town, Richmond Toyota and we'll take the crown ball from what we think are better deals and better service on better cars. The great new Toyotas. So when you're ready to buy a new car, see us the challenges.

00:58:16.420 - 00:58:43.150

Richmond Toyota, 5 16, 23rd Street. After all, if you're gonna go go with the winner Richmond Toyota, it's foolhardy to fool yourself about high blood pressure. It can only be controlled by daily medication. The dating game weeknights at 7 30 on Sundays to on Channel two.

00:58:44.230 - 00:58:47.160

This is Channel two.