FILMMAKER TAKES ON BIG TOBACCO

Rob Reiner leads fight to raise taxes, aid kids

Rob Reiner's fingers slap the table and lash at the air. His voice
rises to an exasperated roar. His fleshy cheeks flash deep red.

For a moment, the 51-year-old actor and filmmaker almost seems
recast as the excitable ``Meathead'' from the '70s TV show ``All in
the Family.'' Only this time, his frustration isn't with Archie
Bunker, his crotchety and ultra-conservative father-in-law from the
sitcom. Reiner's nemesis now is the tobacco industry, which is
battling his pet project, Proposition 10.

The statewide initiative would raise up to $750 million a year for a
slew of young children's services by raising cigarette taxes 50 cents
a pack. Several business and taxpayer groups have denounced the
measure as wasteful and misguided. But the most resistance is coming
from tobacco companies, which are digging deep into their corporate
coffers to defeat the idea.

``Great cause, bad tax,'' says Tom Lauria, a spokesman for the Tobacco
Institute -- the industry's main lobbyist. ``Who can argue with
improving childhood development? But one can argue with the funding,''
which he said unfairly singles out smokers.

Reiner's response

``I'm sick of it,'' Reiner howls in response. ``I'm sick of these
people killing our kids and not having to be held accountable for it.
. . . I mean we're trying to help kids here.''

Proposition 10, which gathered nearly 1.2 million signatures to
qualify for the Nov. 3 ballot, is formally known as the California
Children and Families Initiative. But many people simply call it the
Reiner Initiative. That's understandable. Reiner, the maker of such
films as ``This is Spinal Tap,'' ``When Harry Met Sally'' and ``Ghosts
of Mississippi,'' is not just the measure's most prominent pitchman.
He approaches the role with an apostle's fervor.

Tireless touter

For months now, he has been tirelessly touting the concept
throughout California at rallies, bull sessions with newspaper
editorial boards and news conferences like one he attended Friday in
San Francisco. So what makes him so concerned about kids?

The eldest child of comic legend Carl Reiner and singer Estelle Reiner
says it partly comes from having several young children of his own.
But it wasn't until he began reading about what happens to youngsters
who grow up without proper health care or intellectual stimulation, he
adds, that he became convinced his initiative was essential.

If he can get it passed in California, he vows to push similar
measures in other states. ``I'm interested in jump-starting this for
the rest of the country,'' Reiner says.

He may be just the person to do that. Reiner, who founded Castle Rock
Entertainment, has a name familiar to millions and a wide circle of
friends that includes Bill and Hillary Clinton. And he isn't afraid to
cash in on those contacts. Besides the $1.1 million of his own that he
says he has pumped into the initiative, Steven Spielberg chipped in
$100,000; Robin Williams, $25,000; and Michael Douglas, $5,000.

As of the state's most recent finance reporting period, which ended
June 30, Reiner had raised nearly $1.9 million. Even so, the campaign
needs a lot more. He estimates it will require $4 million to $5
million just for advertising. And he predicts the opposition's media
bill will be even costlier -- perhaps as much as $20 million.

Tobacco officials, who began running anti-Proposition 10 ads last
week, won't say how much they plan to invest. But Ron Gray, a
spokesman for the opposition, put it this way: ``I anticipate that the
no campaign will spend whatever it takes.''

No wonder. Including California's tobacco tax of 37 cents per 20
cigarettes and the 24 cents levied by the federal government, the
average pack costs $2.55 in California, according to an analysis by
the state Senate's Office of Research. Under Proposition 10, it said,
that price would jump 20 percent -- to $3.05 -- beginning Jan. 1. For
a one-pack-a-day smoker, that's $182.50 a year.

A similar tax increase on cigars, chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco and
snuff would start July 1.

If a simple majority of voters approves the measure, the state's
tobacco-related revenues could reach $750 million a year, although
they would drop substantially in later years, analysts believe. That's
because many smokers -- especially young people -- probably would find
the habit so expensive they'd quit. Ultimately, the Senate study
predicts, the added taxes might trim the ranks of teenage smokers by
as much as 13 percent.

The money raised would be funneled into a wide range of early
childhood development programs -- everything from child care and
parental training to children's health services and efforts to
discourage pregnant women from using tobacco, alcohol or drugs.

For the most part, the initiative doesn't specify which programs
would be financed. Those decisions would be made by 59 new
commissions. A statewide commission made up of seven voting members
selected by the governor, speaker of the Assembly and Senate Rules
Committee would oversee 20 percent of the revenue. The other 80
percent would be allocated by 58 county commissions, each appointed by
county supervisors.

How much counties would get depends on how many children are born
there each year. Since Santa Clara County accounts for about 5 percent
of all births statewide, it presumably would get about $37.5 million a
year. Whatever the amount, Reiner says, ``it's a tremendous windfall''
locally.

Money desperately needed

That money is vitally needed, he and other supporters argue. Studies
show that a child's future health and success largely hinges on the
care they receive during their first three years. Yet many children,
they say, aren't being helped.

Leslie Carter, assistant director of San Jose State University's
Frances Guilland Child Development Center, says publicly financed
child care is particularly in short supply. Although her facility is
partly subsidized by the government, it can handle only 58 children
and often has to turn away youngsters.

Carter, who helped gather Proposition 10 signatures, said some
school-age parents have had to put off their educations ``because of
not having that child care available.''

Other supporters include the California Division of the American
Cancer Society, the California Medical Association and the California
Teacher's Association. A number of liberal luminaries also are behind
the measure, such as U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer and San Francisco Mayor
Willie Brown. So are some well-known conservatives, among them former
Rep. Michael Huffington, a Republican.

``Not enough money is being spent on young kids when their brains are
growing,'' says Huffington, who especially likes Proposition 10's plan
to have local commissions divvy up the tobacco revenue. ``I think this
is a great way of depoliticizing where the money goes.''

Others are far less enthusiastic -- particularly tobacco firms which
have contributed the bulk of the nearly $700,000 raised as of June 30
to counter the measure. But opposition to Proposition 10 also comes
from others, including the California Chamber of Commerce, some retail
liquor associations and 29 Republican state lawmakers.

Among other things, they contend it would create a vast, unaccountable
bureaucracy, which would duplicate other agencies that already oversee
early childhood services. They also dislike its lack of specifics
about which programs would be financed, fear it would drive tobacco
merchants out of business and complain that its revenue would be
exempt from a state constitutional rule that gives public schools a
portion of any new taxes.

Crime increase predicted

Moreover, a study for the Committee Against Unfair Taxes -- a group
sponsored by tobacco firms and the California Distributors Association
- -- claims it would increase crime. ``Bootleg cigarettes cost the state
up to $125 million in lost taxes annually,'' the study says. ``This
illegal activity would increase'' since ``per-carton sales and excise
taxes would be $5.20 lower in Nevada; $3.90 less in Oregon; and $2.90
lower in Arizona.''

Another fear is that the poor -- who make up a disproportionate share
of smokers -- would bear the brunt of the new taxes. Dee Cuney, who
runs a child care facility in her Napa home and is an advocate for
others in the business, also worries about the initiative's plan to
boost government-paid child care.

Because that would create new competition for family day care
providers, who typically don't qualify for such public subsidies,
Cuney says, ``it will be devastating.''

Criticism of measure

It all adds up to a flawed initiative, argues Jane Armstrong of the
Alliance of California Taxpayers and Involved Voters in Santa Cruz.
``I am opposed to smoking,'' said Armstrong. But Proposition 10, she
says, ``is a clear example of how easy it is for a good idea to get
messed up.''

Reiner isn't deterred by such criticism. Asked to respond, his body
lurches forward in his chair and he bellows with indignation. He
characterizes the arguments against Proposition 10 as little more than
a smoke screen by tobacco firms interested only in preserving their
profits.

Reiner concedes there may be some things in the measure that people
can legitimately quibble about. But overall, ``there is a common good
here,'' he insists. ``This is an opportunity to not only reduce
smoking, but to invest in young children . . . We have to do it.''

1997 - 1998 Mercury Center.

Checked-by: Don Beck