Monday, October 04, 2004

Vote NO on California Proposition 63

I'm reprinting this analysis of California Proposition 63.

Overshadowed by our US Presidential race, this proposition presents a real threat to the liberty of many thousands if not millions of California and, if passed, would creat the worst kind of precedent California could set.

It is an extremely destructive bill.

We are throwing billions more dollars at a failed system that doesn't work and is actually harmful to the individiauls it is supposed to help.

Here's the article. "No on 63"

I'm very interested in any comments you micht have about this proposition.

This sleight-of-hand substitute is a feel-good proposal that doesn't plan for the future and doesn't make sense. Our children and families require better.

Mental health care is important, and a good idea, but this initiative has problems. The bureaucratic allies of Steinberg have a narrow-minded approach to treating illness, and do not produce the results they claim. Medically, their approaches fill people with drugs, but do not give them a cure. Politically, they define 'mental illness' so broadly as to include nearly everybody. And scientifically, their methods are incomplete, and leave out of the equation the physical and environmental factors that impact a person's health and well being. All that aside, the goal of eliminating homelessness is noble, but the funding structure of the system propped up by this initiative will only perpetuate the sad cycles of dependency- and that helps no one. It just sounds good.

How does this affect me?

The funding mechanism (a marginal tax increase imposed upon personal incomes above $1 million in any given year) would have the inevitable effect of driving some location decisions, for both existing and prospective California residents, in ways detrimental to the state economy. This is the central reason that tax increases, particularly at the state and local levels, almost never yield the revenue increases assumed initially. It is inevitable, therefore, that political pressures will emerge to extend the tax increases downward in the income distribution; over time, the middle class will be hit because, as Willie Sutton perceived, that's where the money is. Alternatively, other programs will have to be cut.

If you REALLY want to know the TRUTH about psychiatry, visit CCHR's website

No comments: