Keep First Things First, but make the loan

If there's a measure on the Nov. 2 ballot that's a marker for the tough choices voters face on state priorities, it is Proposition 302.

Its proponents say passage is essential to filling a yawning state budget gap with new revenues. Otherwise, vital services in education and health care will be put at risk.

Opponents counter that the source of the revenue is an 80-cent-a-pack tax on cigarettes passed by voters in 2006 specifically not to go to the General Fund. And the tax pays for new programs in early childhood health and development that would be eliminated if Prop. 302 passes.

The new programs are called First Things First, and the grants are administered by 31 regional councils made up of local educators, health practitioners and others. The grants subsidize preschool tuition for low-income working parents, training for child care workers, healthier lunches and a host of other services aimed at better preparing children ages 0 to 5 intellectually, socially and emotionally to enter school.

HOW LONG DO EFFECTS LAST?

Advocates are passionate about the importance of these programs to later success in school, especially for disadvantaged children. Studies generally support that contention, although which programs are more effective than others and just how long the effect of early intervention lasts is a subject of much debate within the early childhood development community.

First Things First has gotten off to a slow start as its waits for enough tax revenues to build up in its accounts. It has hired a statewide network of grant administrators to form regional councils, with only $88 million spent this year on programs. But with more than $300 million now in its coffers, it plans to award $192 million in grants next year.

Republican lawmakers have passed a budget plan, however, that fills part of the $800 million budget hole this year with all of the First Things First money. Language in Prop. 302 has the tax money diverted to the General Fund but accounted for separately and spent only on health and human services for children.

First Things First officials offered to loan the Legislature $300 million this year rather than risk having the program eliminated. But Republican leaders turned them down and sent Prop. 302 to the voters, asking them to keep the tax but kill FTF and turn the cash balance as well as the ongoing tax revenue over to them.

HYPOOCRITICAL ON TAXES

That position strikes us as hypocritical, given the antipathy most Republicans expressed toward passing the tobacco tax hike in the first place. A more principled approach would be to ask voters to repeal the entire package of taxes and early children programs, then propose a new tax that plugs specific holes in the budget.

As it is, the wording in the proposition is an invitation to bait and switch. The FTF money is needed to pay for programs already committed in the state budget, not for new services. It will be plugged into existing budget lines for child health and services, and that money will be used to pay for other line items in the budget.

But what if Prop. 302 doesn't pass and the Legislature is short of revenues to plug the gaps? Won't that mean cuts in programs for the same disadvantaged children who are being served by FTF?

That scenario is unlikely, at least in this budget year. The Legislature has already cut tens of thousands of children of working-class parents off from free health care and eliminated hundreds of child welfare workers, with no plans to restore them, regardless of whether Prop. 302 passes. It tried to eliminate free health care for 300,000 poor children and their parents, but was forced by federal health reform rules to rescind the action or lose billions in federal matching health care funds. In other words, it has cut about as much as it can legally and programmatically cut.

PROTECTED BY 'MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT'

As for K-12 schools, the federal stimulus grants accepted by Arizona contain a "maintenance of effort" stipulation that will force the Legislature to hold the line on state education funding at least through this fiscal year. It has already cut funding for full-day kindergarten, school repairs and textbooks, leaving only basic aid that cannot legally be reduced.

So what other options does the Legislature have if Prop. 302 doesn't pass? We acknowledge the severity of the revenue shortfall during such a deep recession, but we are not willing to turn over vital child development funds permanently to a body that in all likelihood will turn around and use it for prisons or more tax cuts.

Instead, we'd urge both parties to return to the offer of a sizable loan from the FTF treasury. It's a one-time appropriation that might set back FTF by several years but would not cripple what we consider an important part of Arizona's need to ramp up resources for its children.

That said, we urge FTF to be more diligent in allocating as much of its funds directly to programs and services, not to administrators and consultants. And once those funds are given out, there should be diligent oversight of not only how they are spent but how effective are the results. Regional councils also need to include members of the public who bring a different perspective on government and public education than is found among the diehard FTF supporters.

Our recommendation, then, is a No vote on Prop. 302, but with a strong recommendation for FTF officials and legislative leaders to return to the bargaining table and come up with a loan or funding stream that both parties can live with.