Debbie Brasket: We Can’t Afford Propositions 1D, 1E

Defunding two critical programs is no way to balance California's budget

By Deborah Brasket | Published on 05.14.2009

  • E-mail
  • Print this page Print
  • Comments (5)
    • Share

On Tuesday, the Legislature is asking the people of California to help it do what it failed to do itself: balance the budget. Sounds good, right? But legislators 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 each 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 streets, out of institutions and out of jails. Reducing funding for these programs would not save California 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 taking 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, voters imposed a tax on cigarettes (Proposition 10) that would create First 5 Commissions in every county to provide funding for early childhood education. Research has shown that the first five years of a 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. First 5 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 Santa Barbara 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 more than 40 years ago, our jails and prisons and homeless shelters have become increasingly filled by people with untreated mental illnesses.

Diverting nearly a half-billion dollars over the next two years from these newly created programs is a recipe for disaster. The state Legislative Analyst 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 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 cross ideological and political boundaries. It includes the Santa Barbara County Action Network (SB CAN), the 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 of the Santa Barbara County Action Network (SB CAN). She can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or 805.722.5094. This commentary originally appeared in the Santa Maria Times.

Comments

Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.

You must be a registered user to comment. Create a user account

Log in




Auto-login on future visits

Forgot your password?

» JerrySb on 05.15.09 @ 04:46 AM

It feels to me like we are fighting over the last scraps of bread on the table here.  Come on cant we all share?

Yes research has shown that the first 5 years of a child’s life is important in the future developement of the child.  Are there any numbers or examples of what these programs are successfully doing? 

A comparison between the development now as opposed to before the programs began?  Are these programs and the many other non-profits working?  There must be some kind of documentation to encourage support for these programs.

SB has a long history of non-profit programs which are all entirely or partially funded by taxes. 

I pesonally have no problem with funding privately or with taxation, a program that is making a difference. 

A difference that can be measured not marketed so that we feel about ourselves Are these programs working?  That is the real question.

Where are the numbers?  Personally an anecdotal opinion or heart felt story do not legitimize a program for me anymore.

Are there other programs that are not being cut or scrutinized?  Is so why?  What is the difference here?  Show them the numbers and fight for what works.

Just my thoughts.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Sbres on 05.15.09 @ 09:30 AM

The problem is that we have to make cuts and all of the programs that will take cuts are valuable. We have a choice, cut what they have presented us with and end up with a 15 bil. shortfall or vote no and end up with a 21 bil. shortfaill. Although, personally, I will only be voting yes on A, D, and E.

If you really want the state to save money ask your lawmaker to end (or at least limit the duties of) the regional center system in California. It duplicates case service work that is already done by providers and slows service provision which ends up costing more on the ground. Massive cuts can be made at the top of the DDS system as well…Of course they will never tell you that.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» scmSB on 05.15.09 @ 09:55 AM

Jerry, I think you are asking all of the right questions. I work for a local non-profit that provides training and support services for people with disabilities or disadvantages so that they can live and work in our community. The vast majority of our funding comes from the state and federal level. We are facing cuts just like everyone else. However, there are things that can be done at the government and funding agency levels that could really relieve some of the pressure that is being put on companies like ours. The structure in California for funding and oversight of services is often extremely top heavy. This inverted pyramid has a tendency to duplicate (or even sometimes triplicate) things like case management and quality oversight. Of course, these are issues that anyone can talk to their representative about.

Also, I would be happy and excited to talk to you more and even show you some of the work that we do so that you can decide for yourself if your money is being used effectively. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» and then what, MS Brasket on 05.15.09 @ 12:24 PM

Debbie—-what is your SOLUTION when the entire safety net falls out of the state and all children—-including those OLDER than five will lose services and educational opportunities? the special interests and fat consultant fees that First Five props up will be fat and happy but the rest of us fighting for crumbs

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Vote no on all tax increases on 05.16.09 @ 08:24 AM

The government needs to cut salaries and staff like the people who pay their wages.The game is finally over..

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

More Local News »

Debbie Brasket: Laboring for Basic Health-Care Rights

The fight for affordable health care will be won through the public sector, not the private — and reform is long overdue

Debbie Brasket: Preserving Affordable Rentals and Mobile Homes

Santa Barbara County needs to create a rent-control ordinance to regulate conversions

Debbie Brasket: Graduates, the Earth Is Hiring

Times are tough for young people to find jobs, but the need is greater than ever for youthful leadership

Debbie Brasket: Preserving Farmland with Sustainability

Denser housing and reduced use of cars are key to saving the ag land we all say we want

Debbie Brasket: A Moral Responsibility to Care for Earth

Trinity Episcopal Church to host symposium uniting spiritual faith and environmental stewardship

Weather: Fair 47.0º


© Malamute Ventures LLC 2007-2012 | ISSN No. 1947-6086

Web Design & Development by PixelFive