An unequivocal no

Re “Reluctantly, yes,” editorial, April 29

Your editorial supporting Proposition 1D explains precisely why this wrong-headed measure must be defeated. You say it takes money from “the most vulnerable” children and would eventually “grab up to 70%” of the revenues that now fund the programs that protect their health and safety. On both points, you are sadly correct.

Proposition 1D cuts $268 million a year in voter-approved funding for child-abuse prevention and other programs at a time when the need for these programs has never been greater. Child abuse is soaring in California because of the poor economy.

Painful steps are needed to put California’s financial house in order, but surely there are better places to trim spending. We all need to share in the solution, but Proposition 1D makes our children shoulder too much of the load.

Sheila Boxley

North Highlands, Calif.

The writer is president and chief executive of the Child Abuse Prevention Center, Sacramento.