|
|
|
Educators aren’t the only Californians flinching at the thought of the May 19 special election results. Both the First 5 program and the state’s various mental health services programs also have a big stake in voters’ decisions. Propositions 1D and 1E are measures which would divert funding from their customary targets to the state’s general fund, in order to assist in closing the large gap in California’s budget.
Proposition 1D
Proposition 1D would redirect existing tobacco tax money from California’s First 5 Program to fund other state health and human services programs for the next five years.
The California Children and Families Program, now more commonly known as First 5, was enacted after the passage of Proposition 10 in 1998. Funded by the revenues from a 50 cents per pack tax on tobacco products, First 5 expanded early childhood development programs for children ages five and under. Organizations such as the local Community Resource Centers are funded in large part by First 5.
If approved by voters, Proposition 1D would redirect $340 million of First 5’s unspent reserves on July 1, 2009, and divert future First 5 revenues in the amount of $268 million annually for the next five years. These funds would be redirected to the state general fund to run health and human services programs already provided by the state.
Proponents of 1D assert that the measure is a fiscally responsible and wise decision to protect the most vulnerable of the state’s children while using existing, unspent money to balance the state budget – and all without raising taxes. Because the diverted revenues would be funding programs such as Medi-Cal, Healthy Families, state preschool, and child care, supporters say 1D offers protection to children’s services funding and protects against future cuts.
“Now, more than ever, the state must use all its available resources to protect and sustain existing programs. This measure will ensure that children under the age of five continue to receive the services currently available to them,” said Robert Baldo, the executive director of the Association of Regional Center Agencies in the official Voter’s Information Packet.
Those against the passing of 1D assert it would eliminate healthcare, immunizations, preschool and other important educational services for thousands of California’s children. The measure is opposed by the League of Women Voters, California Federation of Teachers, California WIC Association, and the Dental Health Foundation, who all believe that 1D endangers 10 years of progress made by the voter implemented First 5 programs.
“Proposition 1D takes $1.6 billion away from local health and education programs for young children and gives it to Sacramento politicians. Prop. 1D violates the will of voters who twice approved these funds for local health education and antismoking programs... replacing voter-mandated local control with Sacramento bureaucracy,” said the leaders of the group “No on Prop. 1D,” which can be found online at www.noonproposition1d.com.
Proposition 1E
Proposition 1E is similar in nature to Proposition 1D. If approved, a large portion of funding from the Mental Health Services Act would be redirected to the state’s general fund to help pay for the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program.
The Mental Health Services Act was approved by California voters via Proposition 63 in 2004 to provide expanded mental health programs through a personal income tax surcharge of 1 percent on taxpayers earning more than $1 million. Revenues from this tax have fluctuated from about $900 million to $1.5 billion and are distributed through the State Department of Mental Health, primarily through contracts with the counties. Some of these funds are used in combination with matching federal funding to provide mental health services for Medi-Cal eligible persons.
If approved, 1E would temporarily redirect $226.7 million of these funds in 2009 and 2010, and between $226.7 million and $234 million in 2010 and 2011 to the general fund to support EPSDT. Currently, the federal government provides half of the funding for the EPSDT Program, which provides a broad range of screening and medically necessary treatment services. The remainder is paid for by the state and the counties.
Supporters of 1E call the measure a smart public policy that prevents further tax increases. Senator Darrell Steinberg, who co-authored Proposition 63, is in support of 1E as a last resort to help balance the state budget. “California faces an unprecedented $42 billion budget deficit. Solving a budget crisis of this magnitude has been painful and difficult... This is a one-time redirection of funds at a time when we face an economic crisis like we have never seen before.”
California Senator Lou Correa as well as the League of Women Voters, the California Federation of Teachers, and the California Nurses Association are leading the charge to defeat 1E. In the Argument Against Proposition 1E contained in the Voter Information Packet, it is stated, “The Mental Health Services Act is changing lives. More than 200,000 people have received mental health services... the programs are saving the state valuable resources by reducing pressure on our overburdened jails and prisons. People who have received Mental Health Services are much more likely to receive treatment and not be incarcerated... these programs have been shown to reduce homelessness, hospitalization, out-of-home placements, and school failures, further providing relief to strapped counties, school districts, and hospitals.”
For more information on all the May 19 ballot measures, access the Official Voter Information Guide online at www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
Educators aren’t the only Californians flinching at the thought of the May 19 special election results. Both the First 5 program and the state’s various mental health services programs also have a big stake in voters’ decisions. Propositions 1D and 1E are measures which would divert funding from their customary targets to the state’s general fund, in order to assist in closing the large gap in California’s budget.
Proposition 1D
Proposition 1D would redirect existing tobacco tax money from California’s First 5 Program to fund other state health and human services programs for the next five years.
The California Children and Families Program, now more commonly known as First 5, was enacted after the passage of Proposition 10 in 1998. Funded by the revenues from a 50 cents per pack tax on tobacco products, First 5 expanded early childhood development programs for children ages five and under. Organizations such as the local Community Resource Centers are funded in large part by First 5.
If approved by voters, Proposition 1D would redirect $340 million of First 5’s unspent reserves on July 1, 2009, and divert future First 5 revenues in the amount of $268 million annually for the next five years. These funds would be redirected to the state general fund to run health and human services programs already provided by the state.
Proponents of 1D assert that the measure is a fiscally responsible and wise decision to protect the most vulnerable of the state’s children while using existing, unspent money to balance the state budget – and all without raising taxes. Because the diverted revenues would be funding programs such as Medi-Cal, Healthy Families, state preschool, and child care, supporters say 1D offers protection to children’s services funding and protects against future cuts.
“Now, more than ever, the state must use all its available resources to protect and sustain existing programs. This measure will ensure that children under the age of five continue to receive the services currently available to them,” said Robert Baldo, the executive director of the Association of Regional Center Agencies in the official Voter’s Information Packet.
Those against the passing of 1D assert it would eliminate healthcare, immunizations, preschool and other important educational services for thousands of California’s children. The measure is opposed by the League of Women Voters, California Federation of Teachers, California WIC Association, and the Dental Health Foundation, who all believe that 1D endangers 10 years of progress made by the voter implemented First 5 programs.
“Proposition 1D takes $1.6 billion away from local health and education programs for young children and gives it to Sacramento politicians. Prop. 1D violates the will of voters who twice approved these funds for local health education and antismoking programs... replacing voter-mandated local control with Sacramento bureaucracy,” said the leaders of the group “No on Prop. 1D,” which can be found online at www.noonproposition1d.com.
Proposition 1E
Proposition 1E is similar in nature to Proposition 1D. If approved, a large portion of funding from the Mental Health Services Act would be redirected to the state’s general fund to help pay for the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program.
The Mental Health Services Act was approved by California voters via Proposition 63 in 2004 to provide expanded mental health programs through a personal income tax surcharge of 1 percent on taxpayers earning more than $1 million. Revenues from this tax have fluctuated from about $900 million to $1.5 billion and are distributed through the State Department of Mental Health, primarily through contracts with the counties. Some of these funds are used in combination with matching federal funding to provide mental health services for Medi-Cal eligible persons.
If approved, 1E would temporarily redirect $226.7 million of these funds in 2009 and 2010, and between $226.7 million and $234 million in 2010 and 2011 to the general fund to support EPSDT. Currently, the federal government provides half of the funding for the EPSDT Program, which provides a broad range of screening and medically necessary treatment services. The remainder is paid for by the state and the counties.
Supporters of 1E call the measure a smart public policy that prevents further tax increases. Senator Darrell Steinberg, who co-authored Proposition 63, is in support of 1E as a last resort to help balance the state budget. “California faces an unprecedented $42 billion budget deficit. Solving a budget crisis of this magnitude has been painful and difficult... This is a one-time redirection of funds at a time when we face an economic crisis like we have never seen before.”
California Senator Lou Correa as well as the League of Women Voters, the California Federation of Teachers, and the California Nurses Association are leading the charge to defeat 1E. In the Argument Against Proposition 1E contained in the Voter Information Packet, it is stated, “The Mental Health Services Act is changing lives. More than 200,000 people have received mental health services... the programs are saving the state valuable resources by reducing pressure on our overburdened jails and prisons. People who have received Mental Health Services are much more likely to receive treatment and not be incarcerated... these programs have been shown to reduce homelessness, hospitalization, out-of-home placements, and school failures, further providing relief to strapped counties, school districts, and hospitals.”
For more information on all the May 19 ballot measures, access the Official Voter Information Guide online at www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
