First 5 California (credit, house, income)

[joosoon]

This illustrates the fundamental problem of voter initiatives and their lack of vetting, and why it's phenomenally stupid to fund useful programs with blood money.

Californians are smoking less: Why that’s a problem for these early childhood services.

The most disturbing part of this:

Last month, a Kern County grand jury released a report where it determined that its local First 5 would need to find additional revenue streams, other than tobacco, “to offset this downward spiral.” One possibility, according to the report: have California and local governments increase alcohol taxes.

And while taxes aren’t an easy sell to voters, especially in a conservative county like Kern, it’s important to consider all options, said Amy Travis, executive director of First 5 Kern County.

“We know it (tax) works,” said Travis. “We know tobacco use is declining, so I think it’s a matter of asking what’s next? Is that alcohol, marijuana, sugary beverages?”

Yep. Let's just create more finite sin taxes. That'll work this time!

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by joosoon

This illustrates the fundamental problem of voter initiatives and their lack of vetting, and why it's phenomenally stupid to fund useful programs with blood money.

Californians are smoking less: Why that’s a problem for these early childhood services.

The most disturbing part of this:



Yep. Let's just create more finite sin taxes. That'll work this time!

Great. So you'd be ok with having your income taxed at a higher rate, to provide a more reliable revenue source for these programs? Why not write your legislators and let the know? JER-RY! already raised the cap gains tax, so it might be too soon to go there again. What else? Taxpayers would revolt over a higher gas tax. Gambling? Speaking of "sin" taxes... It's kind of a sitting duck. But there are probably strings attached to some of those sources, so they can only be used for certain things.

IDK, joosoo, you tell me.

[sav858]

CA is a special kind of stupid isn't it? It's too bad too, First 5 is a good program. There's probably money bring wasted on numerous ineffective programs that could go towards this instead, homeless programs for example.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Great. So you'd be ok with having your income taxed at a higher rate, to provide a more reliable revenue source for these programs? Why not write your legislators and let the know? JER-RY! already raised the cap gains tax, so it might be too soon to go there again. What else? Taxpayers would revolt over a higher gas tax. Gambling? Speaking of "sin" taxes... It's kind of a sitting duck. But there are probably strings attached to some of those sources, so they can only be used for certain things.

IDK, joosoo, you tell me.

If you're asking me that first question in earnest, I have no problem paying taxes for things that are beneficial for the state. So I guess the answer is 'yes'? My complaint isn't about that though. It's about how a program like F5 was built upon a shaky foundation of funding in the first place, something that was known by the authors at the time, and now that house of cards is beginning to fall. As dysfunctional as the legislature can be (less back then), a bill to do the same thing would've at least received some vetting in various committees and addressed this glaring pitfall. It's partly why I detest ballot initiatives, which was how the fund for F5 came to existence. What's worse is that there's at least one guy associated with F5, the one I quoted, who has his eyes set on other self-extinguishing taxes to help First 5 carry on.

Originally Posted by sav858

CA is a special kind of stupid isn't it? It's too bad too, First 5 is a good program. There's probably money bring wasted on numerous ineffective programs that could go towards this instead, homeless programs for example.

Billions for homeless, with requests for even more because there's that many more feeding at the proverbial trough and yet the results of all that spending are abysmal. I'm sure there's plenty of efficiency issues even within F5 that could be sorted too. That's the problem with bloated government. And Ruth is right about various strings being attached to sources of state revenue, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. Mostly it seems though that money that's earmarked for a specific purpose gets silently diverted to the general fund under emergency spending verbiage buried in its code. But that's a different topic.

[sacreole]

First 5 California was actor Rob Reiner's initiative. Remember "Meathead" from All in the Family?

[joosoon]

Reiner didn't write the initiative. It is unfortunate though that they didn't just lobby for the program outside of the anti-smoking campaign to which it was attached seeing as that's its potential undoing right now.

[sacreole]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Reiner didn't write the initiative. It is unfortunate though that they didn't just lobby for the program outside of the anti-smoking campaign to which it was attached seeing as that's its potential undoing right now.

He did chair the campaign to pass Prop 10, the enabling legislation that created the First 5 commissions in California.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...r30-story.html

[Thekdog]

In my opinion, most of these types of programs are not worth it. If they were, we'd see lower income people moving to California to take advantage.

[Ceece]

The problem is not only waste but the entire idea of creating "funding" by imposing taxes on this that or the other thing isn't an exception anymore, it's the rule, because we refuse to live within our funding means. Sure there are some good programs, but everything needs to be prioritized and funded through the taxes already collected by the state. What happens when they run out of 'sins' to tax? New 'sins' of course...becasue we don't respect money or budgets and politicians constantly raid it.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by sacreole

He did chair the campaign to pass Prop 10, the enabling legislation that created the First 5 commissions in California.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...r30-story.html

I don't think it was ever a secret that his name was attached to the anti-tobacco campaign but so was the former surgeon general's among others. Does it automatically make F5 a bad thing though?

Originally Posted by Thekdog

In my opinion, most of these types of programs are not worth it. If they were, we'd see lower income people moving to California to take advantage.

Weird way to judge something's worth but ok. California has other early childhood programs too. It's one of the few things we do right, and one of the few things I'll credit Newsom with being supportive in both word and action.

Originally Posted by Ceece

The problem is not only waste but the entire idea of creating "funding" by imposing taxes on this that or the other thing isn't an exception anymore, it's the rule, because we refuse to live within our funding means. Sure there are some good programs, but everything needs to be prioritized and funded through the taxes already collected by the state. What happens when they run out of 'sins' to tax? New 'sins' of course...becasue we don't respect money or budgets and politicians constantly raid it.

This was precisely my point about the funding. It's stupid to tap a source of money that's intended to dry up by design.