Edmund G. Brown Jr.

34th Governor, Democrat
1975–1983

State of the State Address

Delivered: January 7, 1976

They say they have a pool on how long the speech will be. I hope I won't disappoint you.

Today I want to share with you a few thoughts on the condition of our state and areas where concentration will be required in the years ahead.

We have just come through a very difficult period. Fortunately we began the year with a sufficient surplus to weather the decline in state revenues. Unlike other states that have had to take drastic measures, California has kept on an even keel. Were it not for the upturn in the economy, we would be faced with the unpleasant task of asking for additional taxes. The money which the people will provide under the existing statutes is adequate to meet our needs this year.

But we cannot easily disregard the lessons of other states where government actions far exceeded the available funds. Toward that end, I will work to maintain a prudent surplus as a hedge against an uncertain economy. It is simply not responsible to spend down to the last dollar in hopes the economy will simply grow and grow. That would be to ignore the cyclical nature of our system and do a disservice to those who would come to depend on programs that would have to be cut back in learner periods.

I know some would argue that state government should now dramatically expand and require more from the people to fund the many programs that await enactment. I disagree with that, and I want to tell you why.

We face a new challenge. It is not the one faced by those who preceded us. For them, the task was how to cope with tremendous growth. But for us, it is a far more subtle and difficult undertaking.

Throughout much of our recent past, the economy and the environment generated a surplus out of which new social programs could be financed. Growth was so rapid that relatively few hard choices had to be made. It was an era of guns and butter, of escalating benefits and few questions, a time when new programs were added and few old one eliminated.

That time is no longer. We have just completed and lost the most disastrous was in our nation's history. The oil boycott has shown that our economic machine is dependent on the resources of others. We began the last decade with great expectations about ending poverty and providing equal opportunity to everyone. Glib statements were made about protecting the environment.

Yet we now come face to face with sluggish economic growth, increasing social instability, widespread unemployment and unprecedented environmental challenges. Something has to give. The country is rich, but not as rich as we have been led to believe. The choice to do one thing may preclude another.

In short, we are entering an era of limits. In place of a manifest economic destiny, we face a sober reassessment of new economic realities; and we all have to get used to it. We can't ignore the demands of social and economic justice or the fragile environment on which we all depend. But, in meeting our responsibility, we are now forced to make difficult choices. Freeways, childcare, schools, income assistance, pensions, health programs, prisons, environmental protection – all must compete with one another and be subject to the careful scrutiny of the common purpose we all serve. It is a relentless test, one that the growing number of former democracies throughout the world have found they could not meet.

It is now a question of reordering priorities and choosing one program over another based on a rigorous standard of equity and common sense. We should do those things which government does well, perform them in the most effective manner, and help those most in need.

For example, those at the lower end of the economic scale have least ability to withstand the ravages of inflation. Accordingly, I propose, starting July 1 that state income taxes be eliminated for those individuals making $5,000 or less or $10,000 in the case of a married couple. These are the citizens who need all they earn, who toil for low wages and who must spend every dollar they receive, thereby stimulating the economy. This is a program that helps people, and it doesn't require a bureaucracy to administer.

Next, I purpose that instead of the traditional percentage increase for all state employees, you provide a flat dollar increase across-the-board so those with the least income are treated fairly. Groceries and gas bills are paid in dollars, not percentages. As inflation eats away at our income, it makes no sense to give those with the most and the greatest discretionary income the highest raise. And while we treat our own state workers with greater fairness, let us not forget that many arbitrary barriers still stand in the way of people who wish to advance in our society. To open up employment opportunities, I will support legislation to strengthen the powers of the Fair Employment Practices Commission. While the state cannot create all the jobs we need, it can certainly work to insure that all our citizens, whatever their color or sex or age, be given a fair chance at all levels and types of employment.

And to insure that equal opportunity is a reality as well as a promise, I will support a 50-percent increase in both educational opportunity programs and college opportunity grants.

Next, I see the need for opening up the professional and licenses occupations by increasing public accountability within their governing boards. It is time to eliminate arbitrary restrictions that serve more to create a monopoly and protect the profession from the people rather than the reverse.

In the same vein, I would like to see as many special funds as possible eliminated and transferred to the General Fund so that the Legislature may assess priorities each year an allocate fund to where the need is greatest. Too often money is spent simply because it sits in a designated fund and can't be used for any other purpose.

After almost an entire year of deliberation, we are still facing a malpractice problem beset by rising costs and few easy solutions. The doctors would like their premiums reduced, but the patients and their lawyers keep suing for more. Given our legal protection of the right to recover for injuries negligently inflicted, we face a hard choice of either cutting back on patient rights or forcing doctors to pay high premiums that escalate every year. Again, the system faces a new challenge that will not be wished away. No one person or group is really to blame. It is a product of a set of incentives that have now become counterproductive. I think we can solve, but only if those affected are willing to sacrifice and accept fundamental reform.

After almost an entire year of deliberation, we are still facing a malpractice problem beset by rising costs and few easy solutions. The doctors would like their premiums reduced, but the patients and their lawyers keep suing for more. Given our legal protection of the right to recover for injuries negligently inflicted, we face a hard choice of either cutting back on patient rights or forcing doctors to pay high premiums that escalate every year. Again, the system faces a new challenge that will not be wished away. No one person or group is really to blame. It is a product of a set of incentives that have now become counterproductive. I think we can solve, but only if those affected are willing to sacrifice and accept fundamental reform.

Unfortunately, the crisis in malpractice is only a symptom. Soon, we will have to come to grips with the need to reform the entire tort system. Our old rules are creating runaway costs that will force us to reexamine basic values about how much risk we are prepared to accept, what level of compensation is reasonable, and who should pay for it.

The strain in malpractice represents just one area of conflict where difficult choices must be made. Land use is another. Again, we face a choice between competing interests. The Coastal Commission, after thousands of hours of hard work, has given us a plan to protect our coastline. It is now up to us to fulfill the mandate of the people and devise reasonable rules to control the use and the development of this very precious resource.

A similar, but perhaps difficult challenge is presented by the need to preserve prime agricultural land. It is a resource that must be protected not only for this generation, but for those who come after us.

Finally, I want to comment on unemployment. Last year you increased unemployment benefits by $600 million. You extended coverage to farmworkers for the first time. Our employment development department placed 500,000 people in jobs, and the state has committed hundreds of millions of dollars to job training and public works programs. In addition, I propose that we set aside approximately $10 million for a civilian conservation corps. That will not only protect our environment but provide needed job opportunities.

Nevertheless, we continue to face the specter of nearly a million people out of work. Until the federal government intervenes more forcefully in our economy, we are left fighting a rearguard action. I ask that as each bill comes before you, you evaluate it in terms of its job impact. Until this country provides full employment, we will continue to face mounting instability and a relentless demand for additional government services and income transfers.

I expect the year ahead to be an adventure no less than the last. As we began, you didn't know what to expect and neither did I. But by any standard, we came through it very well. The people can be proud of all that you have done. I'm proud of you. I thank you very much. And let's get to work on the year ahead.