1A has nothing to do with this year’s budget. The Legislative Analyst says, “Although Proposition 1A was passed as part of the package to balance the 200910 budget, it would not significantly affect this years budget.”

Paul and //// are right: 1D and 1E are shell games. 1D takes money from First Five and uses it to pay for another child health services program. That frees up money from the general fund to be used for other stuff. The net result is less money for children’s services, but the deceptive ballot language says it’s more money for kids. Shady!

1E does the same type of thing. It takes money from the Prop 63 fund and uses it to pay for a federally mandated mental health screening program that we would have to pay for anyway out of the general fund.

1A has nothing to do with this year’s budget. The Legislative Analyst says, “Although Proposition 1A was passed as part of the package to balance the 200910 budget, it would not significantly affect this years budget.”

Paul and //// are right: 1D and 1E are shell games. 1D takes money from First Five and uses it to pay for another child health services program. That frees up money from the general fund to be used for other stuff. The net result is less money for children’s services, but the deceptive ballot language says it’s more money for kids. Shady!

1E does the same type of thing. It takes money from the Prop 63 fund and uses it to pay for a federally mandated mental health screening program that we would have to pay for anyway out of the general fund.

In 2004, voters passed an income tax on millionaires (Prop 63) to fund mental health programs. The mandate was that it be “new” programs, and the state could not just cut mental health programs elsewhere — and then use Prop 63 money to “substitute” for mental health. Which is exactly what Arnold tried to do in 2007, but got spanked for it because it was illegal. Again, Prop 1E could re-direct Prop 63 money to fund existing mental health programs — but it’s still robbing Peter to pay Paul.

In 2004, voters passed an income tax on millionaires (Prop 63) to fund mental health programs. The mandate was that it be “new” programs, and the state could not just cut mental health programs elsewhere — and then use Prop 63 money to “substitute” for mental health. Which is exactly what Arnold tried to do in 2007, but got spanked for it because it was illegal. Again, Prop 1E could re-direct Prop 63 money to fund existing mental health programs — but it’s still robbing Peter to pay Paul.

For 1A, sure, I agree, the dividing up of the money is screwy, I’m not even touching that. But basically, it puts a certain amount of money in a lockbox like a rainy-day fund, and in exchange, frees up a certain amount of money to balance this year’s budget. I think we agree on that.

For 1D, though, the bill says it will redirect money from early education funds (which I’m calling “kids over 5” for pithiness) to fund health and human services for children 5 years old and younger. Am I missing something there?

And for 1E, the bill says it’ll move money from other areas of the budget to pay for mental health services for young adults and children. Maybe the confusion we’re having that some of the money they’re moving is from mental health services for older people to fund mental health services for kids? Or am I missing something in the actual text of the bill? (I’m working off the summaries of the bill, because I’m too lazy to wade through the actual legislative text).

Anyways, help me out here! I’m always trying to learn!

For 1A, sure, I agree, the dividing up of the money is screwy, I’m not even touching that. But basically, it puts a certain amount of money in a lockbox like a rainy-day fund, and in exchange, frees up a certain amount of money to balance this year’s budget. I think we agree on that.

For 1D, though, the bill says it will redirect money from early education funds (which I’m calling “kids over 5” for pithiness) to fund health and human services for children 5 years old and younger. Am I missing something there?

And for 1E, the bill says it’ll move money from other areas of the budget to pay for mental health services for young adults and children. Maybe the confusion we’re having that some of the money they’re moving is from mental health services for older people to fund mental health services for kids? Or am I missing something in the actual text of the bill? (I’m working off the summaries of the bill, because I’m too lazy to wade through the actual legislative text).

Anyways, help me out here! I’m always trying to learn!

Brava.

Brava.