Like Proposition 1D, Proposition 1E would take money from programs aimed at assisting those who need help the most and use it to pay off the state's budget deficit now. In this case, the affected parties are the beneficiaries of 2004's Prop 63, also known as the Mental Services Act. That is, Prop 1E would redirect funding that helps people dependent on Prop 63, which currently funds programs dealing with early intervention and community services. Those funds would be redirected to the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program, a program that doesn't cover all groups that benefit from Prop 63 programs and is currently paid for partially by the state's general fund.

With the poor reputation that the state has in addressing mental health, leaving Prop 63 programs with much-reduced funding is a result that must not come to pass. Like Prop 1D, Prop 1E could severely reduce local governments' resources, especially with respect to other programs and agencies that would need to turn their attention to those affected by decreased funding for Prop 63 programs.

Given the potential harm that Prop 1E could bring about, facing a state deficit that would hardly be dented by the $460 million Prop 1E would offer is, in this case, the lesser of two evils. Clearly, like Prop 1D, Prop 1E is not worth the effect that it has at the local level: Surely there are better ways of fixing the state deficit problem than borrowing from programs that deal with the mental health of California's residents. When it comes to saving money and cutting costs, mental health is an area on which compromise cannot and must not happen.

Vote no on Prop 1E.