VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 10

PROPOSITION 10, the California Children and Families Initiative, would raise
tobacco taxes by 50 cents, to 87 cents a pack. The money, roughly $750
million the first year, would be spent on services for children from birth
to age five years -- including prenatal care, child care, immunizations,
parent education and child abuse prevention. Some money would be spent on
smoking cessation programs. Eighty percent would go directly to counties,
for programs local people deem most important.

The goals of this initiative -- to address the needs of California's
children and reduce smoking -- are worthy indeed. The means to reach those
goals are less than perfect. Government by initiative is a clumsy way of
making law. A tobacco tax is a regressive tax. We wonder why smokers should
be singled out to pay for programs that benefit everyone's children. And if
tobacco sales drop, there will be less tax money for children's programs.

We are convinced, however, that the value of Proposition 10 outweighs its
flaws. We are convinced also that if Proposition 10 fails, there won't be
another good opportunity to address the critical needs of our state's
youngest residents.

The public has focused a lot of attention recently on brain development
during the first years of life. Research has shown that if we talk to small
children, read to them, stimulate their tiny brains and give them care and
affection, they have a good chance of performing well in school, staying out
of trouble and becoming productive citizens. If we ignore or abuse them,
they are likely to have a hard time in school and in life.

Yet as a society, we largely ignore the early childhood years. Oh, we
encourage prenatal care. We offer free immunizations. But we don't spend
much public money on children until they get to kindergarten, when it's too
late to influence most brain development.

Proposition 10 provides a huge pot of money dedicated to this purpose. It
would make California a leader in the effort to give every child a chance
for a successful life. It would save billions down the road on remedial
education and juvenile justice.

The Proposition 10 proponents are an unlikely coalition. Filmmaker Rob
Reiner, a liberal Democrat, is the driving force. Joining him is Michael
Huffington, former Republican congressman and unsuccessful Senate candidate.

Prop. 10 is supported by the major national health organizations, the
California Teachers Association, the Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors, the mayors of San Francisco and Los Angeles, and numerous
children's advocacy groups.

They face powerful opposition: the tobacco industry. Prop. 10 could reduce
smoking in California by as much as one-third. That's a lot of lost revenue
for tobacco companies.

The industry so far has waged a low-key campaign. But it is expected to
spend heavily on TV ads. The commercials are likely to focus on peripheral
issues and fine print. Here are some of the objections you will hear, and
some facts to help you evaluate them:

1. Prop. 10 creates a huge bureaucracy.

The proposition creates a state commission and separate county commissions.
That may sound like a big bureaucracy, but commission members will be
volunteers, experts in the field of health, education and child development,
not government bureaucrats. Who is better qualified to make decisions about
spending this money?

In Santa Clara County, for example, an Early Childhood Development
Collaborative recently was formed by several county agencies, schools and
non-profit agencies. It is addressing the lack of prenatal care, the
child-care shortage and other problems. It would be easy to find qualified
people from this group to form a commission, and the $27 million the county
could expect in Prop. 10 funds would be well spent.

2. Prop. 10 creates a huge slush fund for the state commission.

One percent of the money collected -- about $7.5 million the first year --
is set aside for administration of the state commission. That's a lot of
money. But it won't all go to pay huge salaries to the commission staff. If
it turns out 1 percent is too much, the legislature can amend the law to
reduce it.

3. Prop. 10 takes money away from K-12 education and breast cancer research.

Prop. 10 money is exempt from Proposition 98, so none of it will go to K-12
education. But it will not reduce the money available for schools. And it
will greatly increase the money spent on kids.

Some current tobacco tax money goes to breast cancer research. If Prop. 10
reduces cigarette sales, that means less money. But Prop. 10 specifically
designates money for breast cancer research to make up for that.

4. Prop. 10 unfairly taxes the poor.

Tobacco taxes do burden the poor more than the rich. Rob Reiner won't be
paying this tax because he doesn't smoke. Neither do 80 percent of
Californians. If Prop. 10 passes, California's tobacco tax will be third
highest in the country, topped only by Hawaii and Alaska.

Here's why the Prop. 10 people went for a tobacco tax instead of increasing
sales tax or income tax: Raising taxes will discourage teens from smoking.
The health effects of smoking hit the poor hardest, so efforts to reduce
smoking benefit the poor. And, pragmatically, a tobacco tax has a chance of
passing. A sales tax or income tax doesn't.

We cannot afford to continue to ignore the needs of young children.
Proposition 10 is not a perfect solution, but it is a reasonable solution.

Checked-by: Don Beck