Proposition 63 will drive the rich out of Calif.

Adding a small tax to millionaires in order to expand health services for mentally ill children, adults and seniors may sound like a great idea, but a closer look at Proposition 63 reveals that it simply does not do enough.

The most obvious problem in the structure of proposition 63 is the same thing that makes it so appealing to most voters: the extra one percent tax is placed on those who earn over $1 million. California's legislative analysts estimate that a mere 25,000 to 30,000 Californians would be footing the bill for this initiative, practically guaranteeing that those not affected by the tax will support it. The problem is that the initiative relies far too heavily on such a minuscule group of taxpayers. Should even a small group choose to leave the state as a result of all the extra taxes and regulations, an option which droves of the wealthy have chosen to take advantage of in light of recent economic events in California, it would devastate the funding of mental health, leaving thousands of patients in need of help with nothing.

The other economic effects of driving the wealthy out of California cannot be ignored either. The more we tax the rich, the more likely they are to leave the state. When they leave the state, they take all of their money with them. This means not only the end of tax money for mental health, but the end of their tax money for all other services as well as all the money they could have been spending to stimulate California's economy. Also, many of the wealthy people who would be affected by the initiative are business people; they will most likely move the businesses and taxes they provide to other states as well.

Proposition 63 also requires no excess reserve. Thus, when funds fall short of the need for mental health services due to even the slightest economic downturn, there may be no money to fall back on. Once again, this short-sighted aspect of the initiative could hurt thousands of mental health patients.

In addition, this proposition impedes the work of the representatives we entrust to legislate. According to Dr. David G. Lawrence, author of California: The Politics of Diversity, the California legislature now controls only 12 percent of state funds. All other state revenue is earmarked for certain programs and services; Proposition 63 would only further limit the legislators' ability to do the job we have elected them to do.

Under this proposition, the legislature and governor will be powerless to adjust mental health spending to a level below that spent in the 2003-04 fiscal year. Even if mental health programs prove to be ineffective and inefficient, the government will be forced to spend the same amount of money on these programs.

Also, the U.S. Justice Department's investigations have found severe abuses within the California Department of Mental Health. Rather than concentrating on fixing the existing problems, Proposition 63 will expand these programs and most likely create more and bigger problems.

California prides itself on protecting and defending minorities. So how can we allow millions of voters to force a tax on a tiny minority group of only 25,000 taxpayers, penalizing them even further than we do now for their success? We should not.

Proposition 63 is bad for mental health patients, bad for the economy, and bad for California. Vote no on proposition 63.

Chenin Simi is a first year public relations and Spanish major at CSULB.