State and County Early Childhood Development Programs. Additional Tobacco Surtax. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
	Argument against Proposition 10

California education officials, taxpayer advocates and leading government watchdogs have determined that Proposition 10 is not what it claims to be. Proposition 10 is harmful to California's schools and actually takes money away from existing state programs that benefit children and families. It raises hundreds of millions in new taxes, creates a massive new state bureaucracy, but spends almost all of the new money on programs that have nothing to do with smoking or tobacco related issues.

PROPOSITION 10 CREATES A NEW STATE COMMISSION, AND 58 SEPARATE COUNTY COMMISSIONS. Thousands of new bureaucrats, controlled by over 500 new political appointees, would spend millions of new tax dollars on new programs that have nothing to do with anti-smoking or breast cancer research programs.

Proposition 10 directs millions of new tax dollars to UNSPECIFIED Child Development programs; GRANTING OPEN-ENDED AUTHORITY TO BUREAUCRATS AND POLITICAL APPOINTEES TO SPEND MILLIONS WITHOUT ANY OUTSIDE CONTROL.

PROPOSITION 10 REDUCES MONEY FOR BREAST CANCER RESEARCH. Proposition 10 would divert current tobacco tax revenue that funds critical research on breast cancer at the University of California and turn it over to new bureaucracies that have nothing to do with tobacco issues.

PROPOSITION 10 HURTS CURRENT PROGRAMS TO COMBAT TEEN SMOKING. Proposition 10 would actually take money away from Proposition 99 tobacco tax programs that fund anti-tobacco advertising, designed to curb teen smoking. If passed, Proposition 10 would raise millions in new tobacco tax dollars, yet it would actually decrease the amount of money spent to stop children from smoking.

PROPOSITION 10 ROBS FUNDING FROM CALIFORNIA'S SCHOOLS. PROPOSITION 10 ACTUALLY AMENDS THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO CIRCUMVENT PROPOSITION 98. Proposition 98, approved by voters, ensures California schools receive a fair share of all state revenues in order to meet their basic funding needs. Despite the huge tax increases, Proposition 10 explicitly exempts any of the new money from going to California schools. UNDER PROPOSITION 10, CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS GET NOTHING FROM THIS NEW TAX.

PROPOSITION 10 EXEMPTS ITSELF FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMIT ON STATE SPENDING. Proposition 10 shields its massive bureaucracies from constitutional limits on all state spending. By amending the constitution, Proposition 10 purposefully avoids the constitutional spending limit previously approved by California voters. Proposition 10 will result in UNCONTROLLED SPENDING, WITH TAXPAYERS LEFT TO PAY THE BILL.

PROPOSITION 10 UNFAIRLY TARGETS POOR TAXPAYERS AND MINORITY TAXPAYERS. Proposition 10 is a regressive tax that singles out poor and minority Californians to pay the greatest share of the cost of this new government bureaucracy. Like any tax on business, this tax is passed on to the consumer. So poor people are going to pay disproportionately more for the thousands of new bureaucrats and their programs that have nothing to do with stopping smoking or breast cancer research.

Proposition 10 is a sham. It's bad for California's families, bad for California's children, bad for California's taxpayers and bad for California's schools. Taxpayer advocates, educators, and healthcare professionals urge you to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 10.

JANE ARMSTRONG
State Chairman, Alliance of California Taxpayers & Involved Voters HELENA RUTKOWSKI
Member, Westminster School Board Dr. KEN WILLIAMS
Family Physician