This article originally appeared in the September-October 1998 Children's Advocate newsmagazine, published by Action Alliance for Children.

The California Children and Families First Initiative

—Prepared by Stephanie Kim

This initiative would:

• Put a 50-cents-a-pack tax on cigarettes to fund early-childhood development and anti-smoking programs.

• Create a new state commission to spend 20 percent of the revenue and 58 county commissions to spend the remaining 80 percent. The commissions would give grants to public or private agencies for early-childhood development programs, ranging from child care to anti-smoking programs for mothers.

• Require that initiative funds not be used to replace existing state funding for child development programs.

• Generate an estimated revenue of $700 million in 1999-2000. Each county's share of the funds can be matched by the federal government by as much as $3 for every county dollar spent on certain programs, potentially increasing overall statewide revenue to $1.4 billion a year.

Decision making

Pro

• Allows county commissions to distribute funds to a wide range of local groups, public and private. Since decisions are made on the local level, the needs of California's diverse families are best served.

Con

• Creates a new bureaucracy with 59 new commissions.

• Fails to provide specific guidelines for spending funds.

Accountability

Pro

• Requires the state and county commissions to report annually to the governor and legislature.

• Makes each county commission accountable to its own board of supervisors, which appoints commission members.

• Requires county commissions to hold at least one public hearing before making final spending decisions.

Con

• Allows commissions to control too much money, with no control over the commissions.

• Allows commissions to be self-regulated and self-audited and to write their own reports.

Appropriateness

Pro

• Ensures a dedicated funding source for children's programs. Without such voter mandates, children will always be shortchanged in state and local budgets.

Con

• Unfairly forces smokers to pay for programs unrelated to smoking, just because they are an unpopular group with voters. The initiative places some emphasis on anti-smoking education, but many programs, like child care, are not directly smoking-related.

Reducing smoking

Pro

• Would reduce cigarette consumption by a minimum of 25 percent. Prop. 99, which increased the cigarette tax, cut consumption by one-third. Studies show that price hikes in tobacco products reduce teen smoking considerably.

Con

• Would possibly create a black market in tobacco. A decrease in legal tobacco sales does not necessarily mean reduced consumption.

Reducing Prop. 98 & Prop. 99 funds

Background facts:

• By reducing cigarette purchases, Prop. 10 would reduce the amount collected in Prop. 99 funds—Prop. 99 created a 25-cents-a-pack cigarette tax, which pays for anti-smoking and health programs.

• Prop. 10 says the money it raises will not be subject to the Prop. 98 guarantee, which reserves roughly 40 percent of state tax money for public education.

• If Prop. 10 succeeds in decreasing smoking, it will cut its own revenue for child development programs.

Pro

• Reimburses Prop.-99-funded programs for any decrease in income before allocating any funds to the state or county commissions.

• Benefits children's learning by making them healthier, better prepared to learn and generally more school-ready.

• Would save taxpayers considerable money over time by reducing costly problems like crime, drug abuse, and welfare dependency. There would be enough tax money saved to fund early-childhood development programs in the future. Also, people will see the real benefits of these programs and will find a way to fund them.

Con

• Reduces Prop. 99 revenues and therefore deprives breast-cancer research and teen-smoking programs of millions of dollars.

• Prevents California schools from getting their share of new tax revenues as set by Prop 98.

Supporters:

Senator Barbara Boxer, S.F. Mayor Willie Brown, L.A. Mayor Richard Riordan, and many other public officials; American Lung Assoc. of California, American Cancer Society (California Division), American Heart Assoc. (Western States Affiliate), California School Boards Assoc., California Child Care Resource and Referral Network, California's Consortium to Prevent Child Abuse, Children NOW, Children's Advocacy Institute, Child Welfare League of America, California Child Care Health Program, Center for the Child Care Workforce, Child Care Law Center

Opponents:

Committee Against Unfair Taxes/No on 10 Campaign, Alliance of California Taxpayers & Involved Voters

Sources: California Children and Families Initiative, No. on 10 Campaign.

Action Alliance for Children
e-mail aac@4children.org
1201 Martin Luther King Jr. Way
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 444-7136