THE PROP. 28 SMOKEOUT

For our children's health, vote no

WE understand why Ned and John Roscoe want to repeal Proposition 10. They
are in the business of selling cheap cigarettes. Their family owns
Cigarettes Cheaper!, a chain of 550 stores across the country that sell
cigarettes, well, cheaper.

Proposition 10, passed by California voters in November 1998, made
cigarettes more expensive by raising the tax on cigarettes 50 cents a pack.
The money, about $680 million a year, will pay for services for young
children.

When cigarette prices go up, people quit smoking - especially teens and
lower-income adults. Initially the rising cost will drive more smokers to
shop at the Roscoes' stores, but in the long run it will mean fewer smokers
buying fewer cigarettes and fewer customers for all retailers.

So the Roscoes are sponsoring Proposition 28, a March ballot measure that
would repeal Proposition 10. It also would outlaw any future tobacco tax
initiatives. Ned Roscoe, who says he has never voted in an election, thinks
passing Proposition 28 would be a nice present for smokers.

"It would be a real feather in our cap if we could do this for our
customers," he said.

And it would be a real shame for the children of California.

A little more than a year after Proposition 10 passed, we are just on the
verge of finding out what it will do. The potential is exciting. In a state
where nearly 30 percent of our youngest children live in poverty and
one-fifth have no health insurance, counties at last have money to provide
services that children need, such as health care, child care, kindergarten
readiness or nutrition programs.

Unlike government programs that force one-size-fits-all solutions on very
diverse counties, this one allows each county's independent commission to
decide how to spend its share of the money. Alameda County, one of the
first to adopt a spending plan, will use its $20 million for affordable
child care, immunizations, parenting classes and home visits for every
newborn baby in the county.

Though the Roscoes and others have complained that the process of spending
the money is too bureaucratic and takes too long, we don't see a problem.
It takes time to do this right. Santa Clara County, for example, launched a
massive outreach effort to find out from families and service providers in
every area of the county, in a variety of languages, what services are
needed for infants, toddlers and preschool children. The local commission
should have a draft report within a few weeks.

If Proposition 28 passes, all this work will end and we'll be left with a
bunch of wish lists without any way to pay for the needed services.

Proponents of Proposition 28 argue that it's not fair to tax smokers to pay
for children's programs. They say that the tobacco tax places a
disproportionate burden on low-income people and that Proposition 10 gives
government too much control over the lives of our children. And, they say,
Proposition 10 passed by such a narrow margin that it ought to be revisited.

It's true that tobacco taxes hit the poor hardest. So do the health effects
of smoking. And while Proposition 10 money can be spent on children at all
income levels, it's likely that most of it will be spent on low-income
children.

Proposition 10 created a bottom-up, grass-roots process. It's not Big
Brother taking over your child's upbringing. The local commissions are
independent of the county supervisors. They include representatives from
community groups and non-profits as well as government service providers.
While Proposition 28 proponents see a scheme to put all children into
government day care, those on Proposition 10 commissions see their role
very differently: to listen to people and provide the help they need to
raise their own children.

But proponents are right when they say they have a chance to overturn
Proposition 10. It passed by only about 80,000 votes statewide. That makes
it all the more important to vote No on Proposition 28 on March 7.