Who was to blame for California's controversial Social Welfare cuts in the summer of 1970? (Part II)

Fourkas, T. (1970, July 28). Welfare official says haste, budget crisis prompted cuts. The Modesto Bee, p. B5.

Chief deputy director of the CA Department of Social Welfare, Charles Hobbs, reported that the short-lived budget cuts which caused such a brouhaha were the result of his office being "hurried."  Hobbs stopped short of painting Reagan as the bad guy, though it is possible that he intended to imply ignorance on the governor's part.  It is clear that certain "unnamed sources" sought to promote this view--a desire which the Bee may have shared, as evidenced by its inclusion of the opinions of these "unnamed sources" that:

...the changes were made because the Reagan administration did not understand how the program was handled in the past.

 When told that Reagan denied being too hasty, Hobbs replied:

From the governor's view, things moved with logic and calculated speed. But from our point of view, they moved too hastily, because we couldn't measure what would happen, what the counties would do with the changes.

Hobbs argued that problems stemmed from the fact that authority to translate the initial cost-cutting goals into specific cuts was handled not by the Social Welfare Department, but rather by Director of Finance, Verne Orr.  County officials (presumably Welfare Department officials) claimed that the Orr cuts were written in such a way that it left them "little room for interpretation." 

Governor Reagan did not buy this argument, and accused the county welfare workers of intentionally trying to sabotage the budget-cutting process by "following the letter, but not the intent of the regulations."  Presumably, this meant that Governor Reagan felt the county welfare workers did have adequate discretionary powers, but that they simply chose to exercise those powers in a way likely to be most politically-damaging to the administration's push to trim the size of government.

One may dispute whether Reagan's or Hobb's interpretation of the "bind" in which county welfare workers found themselves was most accurate; But it is clear that Hobb's notion of what needed to be done was decidedly different from Reagan's.  Reagan wanted the budgets cut to address the state's financial crisis.  Hobb's, alternatively, merely spoke in terms of "improving" the Social Welfare Department:

The important thing is we make some changes in a system that is pretty bad, and that we make them not in terms of saving money but in terms of improving the system and involving more welfare recipients in the process

The Bee article ends with a report of the aforementioned unnamed sources' speculations regarding why the Reagan administration "decided" the Social Welfare program was out of control.

Hopefully, as my research advances I'll find ever more discussion and explanation of just what happened here.  As always, I welcome informed and verifiable comments!

Update: 7/30/2013 It seems that the Modesto Bee issue cited above is no longer available through Google News.  I leave the citation in the event that anyone wishes to locate the hard copy and consider the original article for themselves.

On the 'arrogant social workers' of California

n. a. (1970, July 26). Reagan: 'Arrogant social workers'. Boca Raton News, p. 2A.

It's very curious to me that I've never before heard of this dust-up between Governor Reagan and the unionized social workers of California--either from Reagan's fans or foes.  Apparently, $10 million in state funds were scheduled to be cut from California's social services budget.  Coupled with the consequent loss of $15 million in federal matching funds, this would have led to an overall reduction of $25 million in social services.

Reagan came across as uncharacteristically harsh when he labelled the social workers "arrogant."

...the governor charged social workers with "terrorizing" the most needy recipients by ordering their aid stopped.  He [Reagan] insisted the cutbacks which had been scheduled to take effect Aug. 1 were not intended to force any truly deserving recipient out of his home and into a county hospital or nursing institution..."Apparently, the regulation was worded in such a way that they (social workers)  could claim they were adhering to the letter while they violated the spirit...This is a clear subversion of our intent and can only be interpreted as an attempt to sabotage our efforts toward responsible administration of the program."

Admittedly, I'm a Reagan fan--one can't dismiss the influence of that--but the very strength of Reagan's rebuke (combined with the curious subsequent silence on this historical episode) lead me to seriously suspect that his language was more than warranted.

I hope to devote some time in the future to learning more about this budget fight.  Any knowledgeable and documented input from my readers would be greatly appreciated.

Reagan and the 1970-1971 California budget battle

n. a. (1970, July 6). Reagan signs record high state budget. Lodi News-Sentinel, p. 2.

This article reports on how a small group of California Senate Democrats finally cracked to pass the state budget for 1970-1971.  Prior to this, Assembly Democrats had successfully blocked the legislation and were essentially forcing a state government shut down unless Reagan acquiesced to their demands for an additional $180 million dollars in state aid to local schools.  While the article--somewhat suspiciously--noted that the approved budget "included $15,000 in rent for Reagan's private leased residence in Sacramento" [emphasis added], the piece did acknowledge that Reagan's refusal to sign off on yet another expansion of state aid to schools came after he had, in fact, caved to Democratic demands for more school funding in the previous budget year (1969). 

Though acknowledging that seven senate Democrats ultimately voted for passage, the article makes special note of the "pressure" applied to Sens. Larry Walsh and Walter W. Stiern.  It is unclear why these two legislators merited this "special" journalistic treatment.

Again on Reagan and education: A California academic speaks

Initially, I had planned to write on the media response to Reagan's primary victory over George Christopher.  Unfortunately, nothing I found was really sparking my interest.  In the meantime, I ran across some interesting material related to last week's post on Reagan impact upon education.

I've been reading an obscure little paper back authored by Reagan's former personal secretary Helen Von Damm--Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.  The book is largely composed of correspondence Reagan engaged in while governor of California.  Unfortunately, Von Damm sought to organize the material more as chapters in an overview of Reagan and his political philosophy, and often omitted information that would be of great interest to the historian (i.e., specifically who the correspondence was addressed to, the date, background occasioning the letter, etc.)  Nevertheless, I found the following statement by Reagan on the purpose of education quite interesting:

Education is not the means of showing people how to get what they want.  Education is an exercise by means of which enough men, it is hoped, will learn to want what is worth having. -- Ronald Reagan (Von Damm, 1976, p. 88)

Clearly this is the not the perspective of the troglodyte anti-intellectual that Reagan was so often pilloried as being. Indeed, even some liberal educators of California came to recognize that truth over the course of Reagan's governorship.  Today's post closes with Von Damm's account of a letter sent to Governor Reagan by a California academic.

Another unexpected letter came from a state university administrator.  "Well," began the letter, "I guess I need to say that, in my judgment and after eight years of your administration, you've been a damn good governor.

"There is of course the fiction that you've destroyed either the University of California or the California State University and Colleges, or both, but you know and I know--and every thoughtful, analytic person knows--that is not true.  Indeed, in my judgment, while you might have been from time to time too tight on the reins your overall support for higher education, and especially the CSUC, has been adequate and beneficial.

"But your contribution has been in another direction, really:  forcing us in higher education to reexamine our beliefs, our values, our directions, our policies, and procedures.  In a certain sense your very early 'cut, squeeze, and trim' proposal (remember the 10 percent across-the-board cutback in early 1967?) got our attention in the same way the mule-master gets the attention of the mule--you sure got my attention, and in the last seven years I've come to see that a great deal, most if not all, of what you were trying to say to my colleagues and me surely makes sense, academically and fiscally.

My 'conversion' started, but did not finish, during the year...of greatest activism:  the moratoria [sic], the Cambodian incursion, and the actual use of violence.  I think, until that year, I really didn't believe in my heart that faculty members could be so irresponsible, that their 'liberal principles' were so damn flexible as not to be principles but mere prejudices and whims.  I learned; and you do not know it, but you helped teach me--you went to most [of] the CSUC board meetings then, and spoke, and I tried to listen and understand.  Finally, I did.

Hence this letter, which is an awkward attempt to express a kind of belated appreciation.  You've been a good governor, and equally important, a good educator in the lessons you've taught.  I only wish it were you, and not the governor-elect, who'd occupy your office for the next four years. (Von Damm, 1976, pp. 64-65)