Proposition 63

Proposition 63
Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes above $1 Million.

Should a 1% tax on taxable personal income above $1 million be established to fund expanded health services for mentally ill children, adults, seniors?

Virtual UU Meeting House discussion: come on in, and read what people had to say.

Official Summary and Arguments

Establishes 1% tax on taxable personal income above $1 million to fund expanded health services for mentally ill children, adults, seniors. Fiscal Impact: Additional state revenues of about $800 million annually by 2006-07, with comparable annual increases in total state and county expenditures for expansion of mental health programs. Unknown partially off-setting savings to state and local agencies.

A YES vote on this measure means:

A surcharge on state personal income taxes would be enacted for taxpayers with annual taxable incomes of more than $1 million to finance an expansion of county mental health programs.

Arguments FOR Proposition 63

Proposition 63 expands mental health care for children and adults, using programs proven to be effective. Paid for by 1% tax on taxable personal income over $1 million. Requires strict financial accountability. Supported by nurses, mental health professionals, law enforcement, educators. Let's stop neglecting mental illness. Vote YES on Proposition 63.

FOR Proposition 63: Deborah Burger, President, California Nurses Association; Chief Cam Sanchez, President, California Police Chiefs Association; Barbara Kerr, President, California Teachers Association; Carla Nino, President, California State PTA; Areta Crowell, President, Mental Health Association in California; Dr. Dana Ware, President, California Academy of Family Physicians

A NO vote on this measure means:

Funding for county mental health programs would largely be dependent upon actions by the Legislature and Governor.

Arguments AGAINST Proposition 63

Prop. 63 is a false promise. It doesn't treat the mentally ill, but is a shortsighted substitute for long-term solutions. Built on a shaky funding scheme, 63 drives away the very taxpayers it needs, destroying its own funding source. Don't jeopardize the health of thousands with a feel-good plan.

AGAINST Proposition 63: The Honorable Tim Leslie, Assemblyman, California State Legislature; David Yow, Member, Citizens for a Healthy California; Dr. William Allen, Professor, UCLA Department of Economics; The Honorable Ray Haynes, Assemblyman, California State Legislature; Lew Uhler, President, National Tax Limitation Committee

Nonpartisan Background and Analysis

UU Commentaries

"An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity."
— Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63) is an initiative that, for the first time, will provide dedicated mental health funding to counties to expand and develop innovative, integrated mental health programs for children, adults, and seniors. The measure provides funding for services and support to persons currently disabled by mental illness, persons showing signs of mental illness in need of prevention services, and to families and caregivers of those affected by mental illness.

The initiative will impose a one percent tax on personal taxable income over $1 million. Current estimates are that Prop 63 will generate approximately $250 million statewide in 2004-2005, with 7 percent increases each subsequent year. This tax will not apply to anyone reporting adjusted gross annual income of less than $1 million dollars. Some opponents of Prop 63 are falsely claiming that this tax will apply to everyone.

For more information on this proposition and an entertaining animated four-minute presentation by actor Ed Asner go to yeson63.org.

I am in support of Proposition 63 and strongly urge a "yes" vote on 63. Mental health services in California are being decimated. Due to budget cutbacks, San Diego County has plans to privatize its mental health services; profit-making companies would cut both the numbers and salaries of mental health staff and would hire more inexperienced interns. Funding for the AB2726 program, which provides much needed specialized mental health services for emotionally disturbed school-age children, is also on the chopping block.

Even before the current round of budget cutting, we had not done well at meeting the needs of the mentally ill and their families. One-third of California's homeless, or 200,000 homeless people, are estimated to be mentally ill --more than twice the number of the mentally ill who are receiving treatment in psychiatric hospitals. A 1999 study found that 16% of the inmates in state and federal jails had serious mental illnesses. At an average cost of $30,929 per prisoner, per year, in California, we would do better to focus on prevention and provide more money for residential treatment programs and increased case management services, medication, and counseling for the mentally ill. Instead, we have built 20 new prisons in the last ten years and raised the salaries of prison guards considerably.

As a social worker, I have seen what the meanness of the streets does to the mentally ill homeless who are vulnerable to all kinds of mistreatment. I have also seen that incarceration frequently exacerbates the mental illness. Each homeless or incarcerated mentally ill person represents a failure on the part of society. When societies discard their most vulnerable, dependent citizens and leave their families without support or hope, it's a failure. Without Proposition 63, the quality of mental health services will only further deteriorate. We can and must do better! Vote YES on 63!

Prop 63 proposes a 1% tax on income over $1 million per year. The revenue generated from this tax, estimated to be about $750 million per year, will be directed to a fund solely for mental health services and cannot be "raided" for other uses.

I am a member of Neighborhood Church in Pasadena, CA and while growing up attended the Unitarian Society in Santa Barbara (my parents were members). My employer, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), has endorsed this initiative. I have worked in homeless services for seventeen years and am currently Co-Chair of the National Shelter Plus Care Coalition. (Shelter Plus Care is a federal program that funds permanent supportive housing for homeless persons with disabilities, usually persons who have a serious mental illness.)

The prevalence of mental illness among homeless adults has been well-documented. In addition, there is increasingly better information about the mental health needs of homeless children and children at risk of homelessness, especially emancipating foster youth. There are also model programs currently in place that have succeeded in helping homeless persons with mental illness leave the streets and live relatively independently in permanent housing.

One program, AB 34, demonstrated cost savings by providing mental health interventions and housing to homeless persons who are seriously mentally ill and frequently jailed for minor offices or hospitalized for treatment. The wrap-around mental health services provided by the AB 34 program demonstrate a better alternative to costly hospitalizations and counter-productive incarceration.

I chose to work on this issue because I know how much it is needed and how much good these services can do. I am currently responsible for staffing a working group dedicated to raising funding to implement the City and County of Los Angeles' Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness. Among the resources needed to end homelessness, we must have increased resources for mental health care. This is truly an unprecedented opportunity in California history to bring the funded to the level that has been needed ever since Governor Reagan authorized closing of mental hospitals.

Every day I see people on the streets utterly lost in mental illness and it is precisely the strength of my faith that keeps me coming to work and believing that we can and must try to make a difference in these people's lives.

In 1961, the Unitarian Universalist Association adopted the following resolution:

WHEREAS, every second hospital bed in the United States is occupied by a mentally ill person with most public mental hospitals caring for 1,000 to 14,000 patients; and
WHEREAS, medical knowledge has developed to the degree that many of the mentally ill could, with proper individual care, be returned to live useful lives in society;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the churches and fellowships of the Unitarian Universalist Association study their own communities to determine whether facilities and budgets are adequate for the care of mental patients within their own communities, such facilities to include psychiatric units in general hospitals, "half-way houses" for discharged mental patients, vocational and counseling services, and special classes in the public school system for emotionally disturbed and mentally retarded children;
BE IT RESOLVED: That member churches and fellowships strive to inform themselves in this field in order to give compassionate understanding towards the mentally ill as family, friends, or employers and to assist through direct volunteer service in appropriate places; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That Unitarians and Universalists accept positions of leadership in their communities where they can influence public opinion and government agencies so that the financial and medical needs of the mentally ill may be met.

As Californians, we know that the existing system of care is woefully inadequate, and that in more than forty years we have failed to fulfill this vision. As Unitarians, we must stand up for an unprecedented opportunity to right this wrong.

Natalie Profant Komuro
Neighborhood Church, Pasadena, CA

"It is never too late to give up your prejudices."
— Henry David Thoreau

SUPPORTERS SAY mental illness often goes untreated for lack of funds and that proper treatment can result in more people leading successful and productive lives. They say that millions of taxpayer dollars are spent on the incarceration of mentally ill individuals who might not be in prison if treatment had been available.

OPPONENTS SAY this measure is flawed; that existing mental health programs would continue to receive funding at current levels regardless of their effectiveness or efficiency. They say this measure pins the needs of the mentally ill on a narrow segment of California taxpayers who may leave the state, which would force cuts in other services to make up the difference.

Could not connect to MySQL because: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (2)

Welcome to the Virtual UU Meeting House

Virtual UU Meeting House discussion: come on in, and read what people had to say.

Official Summary and Arguments

A YES vote on this measure means:

Arguments FOR Proposition 63

A NO vote on this measure means:

Arguments AGAINST Proposition 63

Nonpartisan Background and Analysis

UU Commentaries