California Proposition 63 (2004)
From Ballotpedia
| Voting on Tobacco |
|---|
|
| 2008 |
| Arizona Tax on Marijuana |
| 2007 |
| Oregon Ballot Measure 50 |
| 2006 |
| California Proposition 86 |
| 2004 |
|
California Proposition 63
|
| News |
|
"Smoker rates have stabilized |
Contents |
Proposition 63 was an initiated state statute that levied an additional 1% tax on incomes of $1,000,000 or greater to fundamental health service programs beginning January 1, 2005. Approximately 25,000 to 30,000 taxpayers were to be directly affected by the tax, generating an estimated $750 million in revenue during fiscal year 2005-06. At the time of the election, California income tax rates ranged from 1% to 9.3%, depending on a taxpayer's income level.
The initiative was written by then Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg and Mental Health lobbyist Sherman Selix. Proposition 63 garnered its much of its opposition from Scientologists.
Changes possible in 2009
The California state budget problems in 2009 led to the California State Legislature putting California Proposition 1E (2009) on the May 2009 ballot in order to free up some of the funds that Prop 63 dedicates to mental health care to the state's general fund.[1]
Proposition 98 from 1998 and Proposition 10 from 1998 will also go back before the voters on a special 2009 ballot so that dedicated funds approved by the voters when these propositions were passed can be used for the state's general fund.[2]
Official summary
- Provides funds to counties to expand services and develop innovative programs and integrated service plans for mentally ill children, adults and seniors.
- Requires state to develop mental health service programs including prevention, early intervention, education and training programs.
- Creates commission to approve certain county mental health programs and expenditures.
- Imposes additional 1% tax on taxpayers' taxable personal income above $1 million to provide dedicated funding for expansion of mental health services and programs.
- Prohibits state from decreasing funding levels for mental health services below current levels.
Campaign funding
The "Yes on 63" campaign spent approximately $4.7 million. The largest donor was the California Council of Community Mental Health Services, which gave $733,389 to the campaign. The California Healthcare Association gave $541,735. The California Teachers Association kicked in another $302,555.[3]
In comparison, opponents of the measure spent virtually nothing, with two separate "No on 63" campaign committees spending a cumulative total of just over $13,000.00.[4]
Fiscal impact
- Additional state revenues of about $275 million in 2004-05 (partial year), $750 million in 2005-06, $800 million in 2006-07, and probably increasing amounts annually thereafter, with comparable annual increases in expenditures by the state and counties for the expansion of mental health programs.
- Unknown state and local savings from expanded county mental health services that partly offset the cost of this measure, potentially amounting to as much as the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
2009 budget crisis
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, as part of his plan to deal with California's 2009-2010 budget shortfall, proposed transferring money raised through the Prop 63 tax to the state's general fund.[5]
External links
- HealthVote.org: Neutral information & analysis about the progress of Prop. 63 after the Nov. 2004 election
- VoterGuide.ss.ca.gov - Voter Information Guide (with text of Proposition 63)
- High tobacco taxes won't make the problem go away
References
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "May 19 election deadlines already drawing near", February 20, 2009
- ↑ Inside Bay Area, "Editorial: Budget deal a step forward, but voters must pass five ballot measures", February 15, 2009
- ↑ Follow the Money
- ↑ Follow the Money
- ↑ Modesto Bee, "Protect voter intent for state's mentally ill", December 24, 2008
