Selix: Initiatives would not balance budget as billed

On the May 19 special election ballot, watch out for Propositions 1D and 1E, two wolves in sheep's clothing. They're deceptive propositions that sound nice upon first reading, but both actually harm our most vulnerable citizens.

Gov. Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders are trying to sell Propositions 1D and 1E as part of the answer to our budget predicament, but these measures are no solutions at all. The funds raised from Propositions 1D and 1E constitute less than 1 percent of our state budget, but the impact from cutting programs for at-risk children and people with mental illness will be devastating.

Both measures amount to the Legislature second-guessing the voters, who previously passed two measures raising revenues and dedicating the money to specific programs.

Proposition 1D takes money out of children's services created by Proposition 10, a tobacco tax enacted in 1998. Proposition 1E takes funds out of mental health programs created by Proposition 63, which, in 2004, added a 1 percent surtax to annual income over $1 million.

Legislators now want to use hundreds of millions of dollars from those voter- approved programs to beef up the state general fund, where they can spend the money however they please. Not surprisingly, there would be none of the accountability built into those prior voter initiatives.

Balancing the budget on the backs of children and people with mental illness is unfair and unnecessary.

But, in a crude manipulation of the voting process, the Legislature wrote the language that appears on the ballot to suggest that these propositions are actually good for kids and for mental health care. Legislators exempted themselves from laws that require neutral, impartial descriptions of ballot measures. The resulting language confuses and misleads voters who might want to do the right thing.

So consider what the propositions really do: Proposition 1D toys with at-risk children by taking $268 million each year away from voter-approved funds that are now used for First 5 early childhood development programs, including school readiness for preschoolers, infant health care, immunizations and other child protection programs. Sadly, 1D will force deep cuts to child abuse prevention programs, at a time when child abuse is soaring while the economy sours. This alone will cost California taxpayers billions in the years ahead, since it's a hundred times more expensive to deal with the consequences of child abuse than it is to prevent it.

If Proposition 1E is passed, people with mental illness will lose the care they so desperately need, and will cost taxpayers more in hospitalizations, homelessness and criminal justice. Mental illness is common. In any given year, 5 percent to 7 percent of adults suffer serious mental illness and 5 percent to 9 percent of children have a serious emotional disturbance. Untreated mental illness is a leading cause of disability and suicide, and imposes high costs to individuals, families, counties and the state.

Today, more than 200,000 people, including 50,000 children, have benefited greatly from Proposition 63 funding.

Propositions 10 and 63 were needed because California underinvests in children's services and mental health programs. These vulnerable groups never had a voice before voters stepped in. Propositions 1D and 1E will take that voice away.

Defeating Propositions 1D and 1E will do little to grow the budget deficit, but by protecting these services, we will continue making sound investments in proven children's and mental health programs.

Selix is executive director of the Mental Health Association in California and was a proponent of Proposition 63.