Proposition 63 would dramatically increase funding for mental
health programs in California. But the measure is the wrong
solution for a serious problem.
The treatment and prevention of psychological illnesses is a
crucial responsibility of government, but Proposition 63 would set
inflexible requirements, selectively tax a few, and further limit
the ability of the legislature to allocate the state’s
money.
Proposition 63 forces the state to spend hundreds of millions of
dollars a year expanding its mental health programs. No funding
reductions are allowed, and spending must jump by at least $800
million a year by 2006-2007.
To pay for this increase, Proposition 63 imposes a 1 percent tax
on all personal income exceeding $1 million. While the wealthy
should carry a larger tax burden overall, funding mental illness
care should be the burden of all.
The state is still recovering from a major economic correction
and budget shortfall. As important as mental health is, the state
should not make its mental health programs reliant on such a narrow
spectrum of the taxpaying population.
Already, only a small percentage of the state’s spending
falls into the discretionary category ““ most of the budget is
promised to one program or another. Proposition 63 would only
further tie the hands of the legislature.