Campaign Opposing Health-Related Measures Maintains United Front
Opponents are marshaling a united campaign to oppose measures on the May 19 special election ballot that would let the state tap into special accounts for mental health services and early childhood health care and education programs, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
The measures were drafted as part of the February budget deal (Buchanan, San Francisco Chronicle, 4/21).
Proposition 1D would shift funds from First 5, which was created in 1998 when voters approved Proposition 10 to increase the state tobacco tax to fund early childhood health care and education programs.
In fiscal year 2009-2010, the measure would shift as much as $608 million in Proposition 10 revenue to the state general fund for other state health and human services programs for children who are not older than age five.Â The measure would shift as much as $268 million to the state general fund in each of the next four fiscal years (California Healthline, 4/20).
The measure also would eliminate funds for statewide media campaigns and permit First 5 to allocate funding only for direct health and human services.
Supporters of the measure say it is needed to help the state address its budget deficit and avoid deeper cuts to services for children.
Opponents of the measure say the ballot language and supporters' arguments are deceptive.Â
Rob Reiner -- a leading supporter of the campaign for Proposition 10 and an opponent of Proposition 1D -- said he would donate to the opposition campaign and work to defeat the measure (Buchanan, San Francisco Chronicle, 4/21).
Proposition 1E would shift $226.7 million from mental health care programs that Proposition 63 funds to the existing Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program for low-income children for two years.Â
In 2004, voters approved Proposition 63, which increased the state income tax on high-income Californians to fund mental health services (California Healthline, 4/20).
Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), who co-authored Proposition 63, is defending his support for Proposition 1E, arguing that approving the measure will help preserve state funding for other programs.Mental health advocates remain largely opposed to the measure and hope that rallying supporters of mental health programs could sway the election against the measure if turnout is low on election day (Wildermuth, San Francisco Chronicle, 4/21). This is part of the California Healthline Daily Edition, a summary of health policy coverage from major news organizations. Sign up for an email subscription.