Capitol Letters
Thursday, April 23, 2009
As every school child knows, William “Willie” Sutton (1901-1980) was one of America’s first celebrity criminals who, when asked by a nosy reporter why he robbed banks, famously answered, “Because that’s where the money is.”
Throughout the years, the blinding common sense inherent in Sutton’s Law has been applied to professional fields well beyond armed robbery: Medical school students are taught its wisdom in learning about differential diagnosis while corporate executives adapted it to the rigors of management accounting practices. Now comes Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his Democratic posse, bringing the bank job formulation to bear on California politics.
Capitol Letters
In foisting Propositions 1D and 1E onto next month’s special election ballot, Arnold and his legislative allies seek voter permission to help balance the budget by going where the money is: raiding nearly $2 billion in future revenues from popular programs for at-risk kids and the mentally ill previously approved by popular vote. “They’re robbing Peter to pay Paul,” groused Santa Barbara County Supervisor Salud Carbajal. “It’s shortsighted and misguided action by the state — as usual.”
If passed, Prop. 1D would siphon off about $1.4 billion statewide — about $12.6 million in Santa Barbara County — during the next five years from so-called First 5 programs that offer pre-school poor kids and their families early childhood education, healthcare, counseling, and other services. Voters created the program in 1998 by passing Proposition 10, which imposed a 50-cent tobacco tax increase for the services, largely provided by local government. Prop. 1E is a similar measure: It would take about $450 million statewide from mental health programs set up by Proposition 63 in 2004, financed by a special income tax surcharge on millionaires.
The propositions are two of five measures in a fiscal package that Schwarzenegger and lawmakers rushed to the ballot to authorize details of a dead-of-night budget-balancing deal cut in February. To date, most media attention about the May 19 special election has focused on Prop. 1A, the governor’s signature measure to restrict future spending while also extending $16 billion of tax increases. In recent days, however, politicians and social service advocates have joined forces to mount a vocal and visible campaign against Props 1D and 1E. Today, April 23, a battalion of S.B. County officials is slated for a Courthouse news conference to oppose the two measures.
As a political matter, the governor and legislative leaders argue that no program, even if previously approved by voters, can be inviolable from the state’s desperate need for general fund dollars. As a policy matter, however, advocates for the targeted children’s and mental health services say the programs are being punished for success. At a time when Schwarzenegger keeps braying about how the ballot measures will bring fiscal responsibility to government — by establishing reserve funds, crafting multi-year budgets, and stabilizing revenue — First 5 and the mental health programs have accomplished precisely all of those things, and with measurable positive results, to boot.
“From the very beginning, First 5 was counseled to do multi-year budgeting,” said Sherry Novick, executive director of the First 5 Association of California. “This is a model for government.”
The early childhood and mental health programs were targeted because each has a dedicated revenue stream — the cigarette tax and the rich folks’ surcharge — established by voters. Because these revenues are relatively stable, program executives in recent years have been able to launch long-term initiatives with the expectation there would be money to pay for them. This management style contrasts sharply with, oh say, the governor and the legislature, who lurch from budget to budget with all the solidity of a bulbous-nosed drunk on a fiscal-year binge. With Props 1D and 1E, the governor and company have declared funds committed and set aside for multi-year First 5 and mental health programs as “surplus” and are asking voters to support the money grab.
“When you build a bridge, you have to have money to finish it,” protested Novick. “They call this a ‘surplus’ — we don’t see it that way.”
Rusty Selix, executive director of the Mental Health Association in California and a co-author of Prop. 63, agreed with Novick that if the two special election measures pass, “the pain will be felt at the local level” largely in the form of increased caseloads for social welfare agencies resulting from cuts in preventive and diagnostic services.
“Our job,” said Novick, speaking for the no-on-1D and -1E coalition, “is to make sure that people know what they’re voting on.”