Two bad measures - 1D and 1E

By Deborah Brasket/Looking Forward

On May 19, the California Legislature is asking the voters of California to help them do what they failed to do themselves — balance the state budget.

Sounds good, right? But they are asking us to do this by defunding programs that help the most needy and vulnerable among us — at-risk children and people with mental health problems.

It’s worth remembering that we are the ones who created these funding sources to begin with. In 1998 and 2004, Californians realized the state had failed to provide adequate funding for at-risk children and people suffering from mental illness.

Ballot initiatives were passed to remedy the situation, and since then, these programs have been saving the state millions of dollars every year in preventive care.

By preventing child abuse and providing health care for young children, we keep them out of hospitals and family courts. By treating mental illness in the early stages, we keep people off the street, out of institutions, and out of jails.

Reducing funding for these programs would not save the state money in the long run, but would only provide a temporary, quick fix on a balance sheet.

Proposition 1D is especially deceptive. The ballot language makes it seem as if voting “yes” on this proposition would increase funding for children, instead of take it away. What it really does is take funding for children out of local control, and divert it into top-down, one-size-fits-all state programs.

In 1998, the voters of California imposed a tax on cigarettes — Prop. 10 — that would create First Five Commissions in every county, to provide funding for early childhood education.

Research has shown that the first five years of every child’s life are crucial in determining the child’s future health and welfare. Research also shows that local control is the best way to determine what programs are most needed for children in each county.

The First Five Commission in Santa Barbara County provides programs that are preventing child abuse, improving health care, increasing immunization rates, providing quality preschool, and supporting a safety net for families.

Passage of 1D would create a loss of $2.5 million per year in our county alone.

Proposition 1E would reduce funding for mental-health services established by Proposition 63 in 2004. Voters approved the creation of a Mental Health Services Fund to make up for the fact that ever since state mental health hospitals were closed over 40 years ago, our jails and prisons and homeless shelters have become increasingly filled by people with untreated mental illnesses.æ

Diverting nearly a half-billion dollars over the next two years from these newly created programs is a recipe for disaster.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office warns that “state and local governments could incur added costs for homeless shelters, social services programs, medical care, law enforcement, and county jail and state prison operations” with the passage of 1E.

We can’t afford to allow mental illness to go untreated. The costs are too great, both to the state and in terms of human suffering and wasted lives.

There’s a growing list of organizations opposing 1D and 1E that crosses ideological and political boundaries. It includes SB CAN, Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association, Progressive Democratic Club, California Republican Party, League of Women Voters, and a whole host of Educational and Mental Health advocates.

The boards of supervisors of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties are also opposing 1D and 1E.

While we all would like to have a balanced budget, this is not the way to do it.

Vote “no” on Propositions 1D and 1E.

Deborah Brasket is executive director for the Santa Barbara County Action Network (SB CAN). She can be reached at 722-5094, or Deborah@sbcan.org. Looking Forward runs every Friday, providing a progressive viewpoint on local issu