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
4 Comments
Links to this post
Share on Facebook
