> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Proposition 63 would tax millionaires to fund expanded mental health programs - URL: https://www.smdp.com/103004-story-20041030/ - Published: 2004-10-30T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T05:22:20.000Z - Author: Guest Author - Tags: Government & Politics, Santa Monica, #archive-import No vote: Keeps the current system in place. Cost: No significant cost. Proposition 63: This proposition raises money to expand and develop a variety of mental health programs by imposing a one percent tax on the personal income of people making more than $1 million. The state is also prohibited from decreasing funding for mental health services below current levels. Historically, counties have been the primary providers of care for the mentally ill who lack private insurance coverage. Services such as hospitalization, counseling, substance abuse treatment and more have been paid for by federal, state and local funds. Those for Prop 63 point to prisons as places where the mentally ill are housed rather than receiving the treatment they need. Those against Prop 63 claim the funding is not stable and continues to fund programs at current levels whose effectiveness and efficiency has not been proven. They say that the plan will also drive away the millionaires which the plan depends on. Cost: An increase in annual state revenue to $800 million by 2006-2007\. At the same time, the decrease in the need for other government services by the mentally ill, will amount to annual state and local savings of into the low hundreds of millions of dollars. Proposition 64: This would amend California’s unfair business laws in the following ways: Restrict the right to individual lawsuits or class action lawsuits to those who have been actually injured or suffered financial or property loss. Require those suing on behalf of others to meet class action lawsuit requirements. Use civil penalty revenue for consumer protection enforcement. Yes vote: Would amend the unfair business laws. No vote: Would leave the current laws in place. Cost: Unknown. It depends upon number of cases of unfair business practices. Proposition 65: Would amend the California Constitution to require a vote of the people before the Legislature could make changes to local governments’ revenue from sales tax, property tax and vehicle license fees. Also, local agencies could choose not to comply with state unfunded mandates. Yes vote: California Constitution would be amended to require voter approval for any shift in taxes away from local government. No vote: Leave the current system in place. Cost: Since this proposition would make significant changes to state authority over local finances, possibly billions of dollars annually in local revenue would be gained. Proposition 66: Would amend California’s Three Strikes Law so that only violent or serious felonies count for the third strike, and therefore a longer sentence. It would also increase the punishment for specific sex crimes against children. Yes vote: Would amend the three strikes law to only count violent or serious crimes as a third strike. No vote: Would leave the law as it is. Cost: The state could save several hundreds of millions of dollars from a reduction in prison population. Local government could experience an increase of tens of millions of dollars for courts and county jails. Proposition 67: Under state and federal law, anyone seeking emergency medical care must be given the care whether or not he or she can pay for it. As a result, hospitals and physicians who provide emergency and trauma care are often not fully compensated for the services they provide. This proposition would supplement that money by adding another 3 percent surcharge to phone bills, some tobacco taxes and criminal and traffic penalties. The surcharge is limited to 50 cents per month, but the limit does not apply to cell phones or business lines. Those for it say the proposition would make emergency medical care more available, as ERs are closing and medical personnel overwhelmed. Those against it say it is a tax on talking, and there is no cap on cell phone or business lines. More than a million seniors will be affected, and 90 percent of the money goes to large health care corporations and special interests. Yes vote: Would give the state a 3 percent emergency telephone surcharge, added to the existing surcharge, on bills for telephone services for in-state calls. This money would be used to provide additional funds to reimburse physicians and hospitals that have undercompensated emergency and trauma care, as well as to fund other specified programs. No vote: Would keep the emergency telephone number surcharge at.75 percent on bills for telephone services for in-state calls. Additional funding to reimburse physicians and hospitals would depend largely on action by the Legislature and Governor. Cost: State revenues will increase about $500 million annually to fund doctors and hospitals for their emergency medical services. At present, $32 million a year is being spent in state funding for physicians and clinics for uncompensated medical care. Proposition 68: Note: Backers of Proposition 68 have dropped their campaign after concluding they would lose at the polls. Supporters of this proposition are concentrating their efforts on opposing Proposition 70 and preventing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger from signing new gambling agreements with tribes. Proposition 68 will still appear on the ballot. This proposition would authorize the governor to negotiate tribal compact amendments requiring that Indian tribes pay 25 percent of slot machine and gaming devices to revenues to the government. Those for the proposition say California’s profitable Indian casinos should pay their fair share to support local services. Those against it say the fair share claim is a scam and that its backers operate casinos themselves throughout California near freeways and schools, creating more traffic and crime. Yes vote: Allows slot machines at 16 specific racetracks and card rooms, unless all Indian tribes with existing tribal-state gambling compacts agree to certain terms within 90 days. No vote: Means slot machines would not be authorized at racetracks and card rooms, and Indian tribes would continue to be subject to tribal-state gambling compacts. Local governments would not receive new gambling revenues. Proposition 69: This proposition will require DNA samples to be collected from all felons and certain other criminals. It allows local law enforcement labs to work for the state database and maintain a local database, and it specifies procedures to protect confidentiality. Those for it say requiring arrestees for rape and murder to submit DNA would help solve crime, stop serial rapes and killings, and prevent false imprisonment. California law would join 34 other states with existing laws. Those against it say the proposition could trap your DNA in criminal databases, treats innocent residents like guilty ones and violates privacy. Yes vote: Means the state would expand the collection of DNA samples to include all convicted felons, some convicted non-felons, and those who have been arrested for certain offenses. Criminal penalties would increase to fund this expansion. No vote: Means that DNA samples would continue to be required only from those convicted of serious felony offenses. Cost: State costs to process DNA samples could be as much as $20 million annually. Local costs will most likely be offset by revenues with additional money available for other DNA-related activities. Proposition 70: If a federally-recognized Indian tribe requests it, the governor must execute a renewable 99-year gaming contract. This grants exclusive tribal gaming rights with no limit on the number of machines, facilities or types of games on Indian land. The tribes would then give part of their income to the state and the contributions are in lieu of other fees and taxes. It requires off-reservation impact assessments, and public notice opportunities before expansion or construction of facilities. Those for it say it will provide billions of dollars to the state and restrict tribal gambling to Indian reservations. Those against it say the governor’s existing agreements with tribes guarantee they pay their fair share and the new proposition would destroy these agreements. Yes vote: Means tribes entering a new or amended tribal-state gambling compact would pay the state based on their gambling income. The compacts last 99 years and do not limit the type or number of casino games. No vote: Means tribes would still be subject to existing compacts that require various types of payments to the state. Existing compacts will last up to 26 more years and place some limits on the types and number of casino games. Cost: Analysts do not know how the proposition would affect payments from the tribes to the state. The potential increase or decrease could be anywhere from tens of millions up to $100 million annually. Proposition 71: Stem cell research may provide information on human development, drug safety and the possibility of a source of cells and tissues to treat Parkinson’s Disease, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, diabetes or spinal cord injuries. Stem cells are cells that have not become specific cells, such as heart cells or blood cells. They can be transformed into cells with specialized functions. Stem cells can also reproduce themselves over a period of time. Embryonic stem cells come from an embryo that is five to seven days old. They are usually taken from extra embryos that have been donated for research by parents who tried to conceive a child at fertility clinics. Adult stem cells are taken from many organs like the brain, bone marrow, blood vessels and the liver, but are limited to becoming the kind of cell type of where it came from. Those for it say the research can find cures for serious conditions, save millions of lives and cut health care costs by billions. Those against it say it adds $3 billion of bond debt to California’s debt load, the money would fund a bureaucracy to promote human embryo cloning, and there are few controls on how the money is spent. Yes vote: Would allow the state to establish a new state medical research institute called the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. It authorizes the state to issue $3 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund stem cell research and its facilities in California. It would also prohibit the institute’s funding of human reproductive cloning research. No vote: Means funding for stem cell research in California would depend on the Legislature and governor and anyone else that provides research funding. Cost: It will cost the state about $6 billion over 30 years to pay off the principal $3 billion and $3 billion interest on the bonds. This averages to $200 million a year of state payments. Proposition 72: This law would provide individual and dependent health care coverage for employees working for large and medium employers. It will require that employers pay at least 80 percent of coverage cost and a maximum of 20 percent of employee contribution. It also requires employers to pay for health coverage or pay a fee to medical insurance board that buys mainly private health coverage. This applies to employers with at least 200 employees starting Jan. 1, 2006, and employers with 50 to 199 employees beginning Jan. 1, 2007\. It applies to employers with 20-49 employees if tax credit is enacted. Those for it say it would keep private health coverage within reach of working families. Those against it say it creates a government-run health care scheme funded by an estimated $7 billion in new taxes on employers and workers by 2007 and be forced from your existing plan into a government system. Yes vote: Means certain employers would be required to provide health coverage for their employees and some dependents through either paying a fee to a new state program or arranging directly with providers for health care coverage. The state would also establish a new program to help lower-income employees pay their share of health care premiums. No vote: Means the state would continue to allow employers to choose if they will provide health insurance for their employees and dependents. The state would not establish a new program to help low-income employees in paying premiums for health care coverage at work. Cost: A “significant expenditure” would be fully offset by employer fees for a state program. Significant county health program savings and significant public employer health coverage costs. Significant net state revenue losses. Overall unknown net state and local savings or costs. (Information compiled by Daily Press interns Susan Tam and Pam Wight.) *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 30, 2004.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/103004.pdf?ref=smdp.com)