The effects of Proposition 1D on some of California's most defenseless groups of people would take a comparatively paltry amount of money-$608 million in 2009-10 and $268 million for the four years after-and redirect it to the general fund to help balance the state budget. But the cost of collecting that money-particularly in the face of the nearly $20 billion the state has to pay-outweighs the benefits by far.

Prop 1D would redirect a significant amount of funds allocated for children as per the earlier Prop 10, also known as the California Children and Families Act, to pay for the budget now. Moreover, the fiscal effects of Prop 1D's redistribution of funds would not only impact children dependent on state and regional programs, but also impact the local governments responsible for administering some of those programs. With said local governments already finding themselves strained as much as they can reasonably take, Prop 1D can be likened to a big brother-in this case, the state government-forcibly taking money from his little brother.

All told, the financial buoyancy provided by Prop 1D is not worth the losses that it imposes on the local level. Local governments know what works best for their respective areas, especially in the case of children's services-they shouldn't have to pay for the state's financial problems. The state should take responsibility at the top.

And while Prop 1D does offer at least some amount of money to help close the budget deficit, a failed Prop 1D would not be as disastrous for the state as would the failure of some of the other six propositions, particularly 1A-1C.

Vote no on Prop 1D.