NO on 1D & 1E
[ From: "Locals rail against state propositions," By Colby Frazier, DAILY SOUND, April 24, 2009 ]
Twenty-six days before voters hit the polls to decide the fate of six ballot measures aimed at helping the state get a grip on its tenuous budget situation, local politicians and residents railed yesterday against two of the most controversial propositions, 1D and 1E.
The propositions, which aim to divert into the state’s general fund hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked for programs for children and the mentally ill, were called “misleading shams” by opponents, who pleaded with residents to vote no.
“These measures are aiming their sights on the most vulnerable,” said Santa Barbara County 1st District Supervisor Salud Carbajal. “These two measures are misguided, inappropriate shams.”
.. If approved, Proposition 1E would divert roughly $500 million over the next two years from the Mental Health Services Act, also known as Proposition 63, into the general fund.
Approved in 2004, Proposition 63 levied a 1 percent tax on personal incomes above $1 million.
... it provides a significant source of funding for 10 county programs... the county of Santa Barbara will receive more than $11 million in Proposition 63 funding this year.
Barry Schoer, executive director of Sanctuary Psychiatric Centers, said he had a hand in helping get the Mental Health Services Act approved, and for the state to dip into this money under the guise of balancing its budget would “undo what took 45 years to create.”
Schoer said the intent of Proposition 63 at the time of its approval was clear: to provide funding for mental health programs that had suffered decades of neglect.
They’re trying to “do so much harm to what we’ve worked so hard to create,” Schoer said of the Sacramento politicians who are supporting 1E.
Opponents of Proposition 1D are equally passionate, saying it will strip nearly $1 billion over the next five years from the First 5 Commission, which allocates roughly $2.5 million per year to children’s programs in the county.
This proposition would take money from Proposition 10, approved by voters in 1998, and reallocate it to an array of other programs.
Proposition 10 imposed a 50-cent tax on cigarettes. The funds garnered from the tax go to improving and creating development and health programs for children under the age of 5.
Proponents of the proposition say the funds will be used to improve other children’s programs, and furthermore, the diversions of funding, to the tune of $268 million per year, would only be for five years.
But opponents argue local programs that have proved effective will fall by the wayside, putting children across the state at risk.
Additionally, Schoer said the argument that the two propositions will somehow alleviate strain on the state’s budget is simply not true.
He said both propositions would account for no more than 1 percent of the state’s total budget. And if the proposition were to be approved, he said they would put such a strain on local preventative services, that the state and counties would pay far more in the long run on the needs of the mentally ill and children.
Though the city of Santa Barbara receives no direct funding from Proposition 63 or 10, its citizens benefit from the services, and when these are cut, cities will pay as well, according to city councilmember Helen Schneider.
Schneider, who was joined by councilmember’s Grant House, Iya Falcone, Das Williams and Roger Horton, said she’d be voting no on both propositions.
Sacramento is “balancing the budget on the backs of children and the mentally ill …,” she said. “That’s not going to solve the state’s budget crisis.”
More information about the propositions is available at www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/.
The last day to register to vote for the May 19 election is May 4. The last day to request a vote-by-mail ballot is May 12. Voter registration forms can be downloaded at www.sbvote.com, or request an application by calling 800-SBC-VOTE.
Twenty-six days before voters hit the polls to decide the fate of six ballot measures aimed at helping the state get a grip on its tenuous budget situation, local politicians and residents railed yesterday against two of the most controversial propositions, 1D and 1E.
The propositions, which aim to divert into the state’s general fund hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked for programs for children and the mentally ill, were called “misleading shams” by opponents, who pleaded with residents to vote no.
“These measures are aiming their sights on the most vulnerable,” said Santa Barbara County 1st District Supervisor Salud Carbajal. “These two measures are misguided, inappropriate shams.”
.. If approved, Proposition 1E would divert roughly $500 million over the next two years from the Mental Health Services Act, also known as Proposition 63, into the general fund.
Approved in 2004, Proposition 63 levied a 1 percent tax on personal incomes above $1 million.
... it provides a significant source of funding for 10 county programs... the county of Santa Barbara will receive more than $11 million in Proposition 63 funding this year.
Barry Schoer, executive director of Sanctuary Psychiatric Centers, said he had a hand in helping get the Mental Health Services Act approved, and for the state to dip into this money under the guise of balancing its budget would “undo what took 45 years to create.”
Schoer said the intent of Proposition 63 at the time of its approval was clear: to provide funding for mental health programs that had suffered decades of neglect.
They’re trying to “do so much harm to what we’ve worked so hard to create,” Schoer said of the Sacramento politicians who are supporting 1E.
Opponents of Proposition 1D are equally passionate, saying it will strip nearly $1 billion over the next five years from the First 5 Commission, which allocates roughly $2.5 million per year to children’s programs in the county.
This proposition would take money from Proposition 10, approved by voters in 1998, and reallocate it to an array of other programs.
Proposition 10 imposed a 50-cent tax on cigarettes. The funds garnered from the tax go to improving and creating development and health programs for children under the age of 5.
Proponents of the proposition say the funds will be used to improve other children’s programs, and furthermore, the diversions of funding, to the tune of $268 million per year, would only be for five years.
But opponents argue local programs that have proved effective will fall by the wayside, putting children across the state at risk.
Additionally, Schoer said the argument that the two propositions will somehow alleviate strain on the state’s budget is simply not true.
He said both propositions would account for no more than 1 percent of the state’s total budget. And if the proposition were to be approved, he said they would put such a strain on local preventative services, that the state and counties would pay far more in the long run on the needs of the mentally ill and children.
Though the city of Santa Barbara receives no direct funding from Proposition 63 or 10, its citizens benefit from the services, and when these are cut, cities will pay as well, according to city councilmember Helen Schneider.
Schneider, who was joined by councilmember’s Grant House, Iya Falcone, Das Williams and Roger Horton, said she’d be voting no on both propositions.
Sacramento is “balancing the budget on the backs of children and the mentally ill …,” she said. “That’s not going to solve the state’s budget crisis.”
More information about the propositions is available at www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/.
The last day to register to vote for the May 19 election is May 4. The last day to request a vote-by-mail ballot is May 12. Voter registration forms can be downloaded at www.sbvote.com, or request an application by calling 800-SBC-VOTE.
Labels: Proposition 10, Proposition 63
posted by Malcolm
at
4/25/2009
Share on Facebook
4 Comments :
Here’s something to chew on about First 5 (Prop 1D):
Although some expenditure for evaluating programs is required by the First 5 statute, over the last 7 or so years, audited financial statements reveal that First 5 commissions have spent approximately $100 MILLION on evaluation. How can it cost that much?
Well, First 5 evaluation payments go mainly to private consulting firms like Harder and Company, not to children 0 to 5!
Based on audited financial statements and adding a standard 3% for inflation, an analysis shows that in 10 years, they are on course to spend over $300 MILLION on evaluation.
In 15 years, it will top $500 MILLION. In 25 years: $1 BILLION dollars+.
First 5 Commissioners are misspending funds: Proposition 10 was not meant to make the evaluators RICH!
Let's put some of the money back towards helping kids and get ourselves out of this budget mess – VOTE YES on 1D!
Prop 1D does NOT ask you to pay ANY new taxes.
First 5’s have over $2 BILLION in reserve they can use over the next 5 years while they help the rest of California. It's a total misstatement to say that those monies are already committed to certain programs because with one vote their commissions can re-direct those reserves to whatever they choose to. So, who's to be trusted?
Well, IMO, it's not First 5. They are run by Commissioners who vote for budgets that direct cash to their OWN departments and organizations. There are now wild exaggerations about how 1D could affect people: just not so – reserves will be used. Perhaps such claims are why Prop 1D puts an auditor on the Commission to oversee their actions.
If that does not bother you then this should: the First 5 lobbyist has received over $1 MILLION of First 5 funds & about $200K of that went straight to her pension plan - IRS Form 990s say so! Prop 1D stops her from taking any new First 5 funds!
Vote YES on 1D!
First 5 funds are supposed to be used for children 0 to 5, not to pay for a lobbyist of ANY KIND! IMO, there needs to be an investigation into whether or not laws were broken by the First 5 Counties when paying dues and providing other revenues to a lobbying group.
Sherry Novick received over 40% of the total revenues of First 5 Association from 2004 - 2007. And guess who is on that Board of Directors of the First 5 Association: ALL OF THEM ARE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS of county First 5's. All of them approved her paycheck and benefits. All of them are legally liable for doing so.
First 5 says they are uniquely successful – well, show us the beef ! ! ! !
Why is not First 5 claiming successful programs outcomes? Where’s the data?
Here’s some: In Riverside County, they spent about $1130 per child served, not $185 per client that’s suggested by the Riverside First 5 07/08 evaluation report. IMO, that’s playing with the numbers.
Here’s some more: In Contra Costa, in FY 04/05, published evaluation reports show that it cost nearly $14,000 for each ONE hour class in the Family Centers. It dropped to $3,600 in 06/07, but by God, by what measure is that "successful"? It’s not - THAT IS WASTE!
And… unlike what some will have you think, First 5 has $2 BILLION+ because it took 2 years+ for most of them to do their strategic plan and so they were not allowed to spend the funds coming in until they did. It was NOT due to good planning, it was a FLUKE!
Please do not believe the malarky. Children will not die. Children will not be abused more often should Prop 1D pass. They have billions to ensure that won’t happen.
VOTE YES on 1D!
- Prop 1D is a GREAT IDEA! -
$500 MILLION+ First 5 dollars went up in smoke ?!?!?!
NONE of that cash went to children 0 to 5!
It went to the Compensation and Retention Encourage Stability initiative, called “CARES”.
According to the 06/07 San Diego First 5 Eval report (p 170), the CARES initiative “originated in response to a major child care crisis: … high (staff) turnovers rates...”.
Amongst other things, CARES simply paid people to work BUT on p. 171 it says THEY ARE STILL LEAVING in droves - with a 22% annual turnover rate, within 5-7 years, there will be a 100%+ turn.
a highlight: CARES paid people who already had Master's degrees up to $5,000 to stay in their jobs (from publicly accessible CARES database).
CARES spent over $500 MILLION on this "solution" (from state of CA audited financial statements)
Can anyone say: POOF?
Vote YES on 1D!
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment!
Links to this post
Create a Link