Make Tobacco Tax Count

Proposition 10’s razor-thin margin of victory indicates that Californians are of two minds about the initiative, which will fund early childhood develop-ment programs through a 50-cent-a-pack tobacco tax.

There’s no question that the proposition is an earnest attempt to solve a genuine social problem. Despite abundant new research demonstrating the importance of the first three years of life, when 90% of brain growth occurs, only 4% of public spending is earmarked for those years. Children from all backgrounds are often deprived of the experiences they need to thrive later in life, especially day care that goes beyond baby-sitting to stimulate brain growth.

If done right, the results of the proposition, which this newspaper supported, could inspire a national movement to boost children’s readiness to learn. But just as easily, poor oversight could let special interests corrupt its essential mission.

The tax is expected to generate $750 million a year. Most spending authority is given to county-appointed boards of community leaders and child development experts. The danger here is that these boards, either through inexperience or political favoritism, will squander money on ineffective programs.

Proposition 10 campaign manager Mike Roos discounts such fears, arguing that even if a county decides to fund a program with little chance of being effective, that program must still declare its goals publicly and have its progress toward them assessed in yearly public audits. The program will have hordes of competitors scrutinizing its every failure, Roos promises. But a year’s worth of waste is still a high price for taxpayers--and for children who aren’t getting what they need.

Proposition 10 will certainly encourage innovation. But generally, counties, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, should base their programs on a host of successful out-of-state models. For instance, the educational home visits pioneered by William F. Weld when he was governor of Massachusetts have shown how nurses and social workers visiting the homes of teenage mothers before their babies are born can impart valuable lessons on what children need to grow and develop.

That’s where California’s newly elected leaders come in. They are now considering whom to appoint to the state commission that will oversee the county programs: The governor will appoint three members, while the Assembly speaker and Senate president pro tem will appoint two each.

Proposition 10’s success will ride largely on the quality of these appointees. Will they know enough about successful federal programs like Early Head Start to provide guidance to counties? And will they be politically savvy enough to mediate between social conservatives who are resistant to government programs that tell them how to raise their children and liberal early childhood advocates like David Olds, who believes that money ought to be directed to only the neediest of families?

Attentive state leadership is key to ensuring that Proposition 10 steers clear of political infighting and poor management and focuses on giving California children the early attention they need to succeed.