Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA) Contact: http://www.sjmercury.com/ Pubdate: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 Author: Steve Johnson, Mercury News Staff Writer FILMMAKER TAKES ON BIG TOBACCO Rob Reiner leads fight to raise taxes, aid kids Rob Reiner's fingers slap the table and lash at the air. His voice rises to an exasperated roar. His fleshy cheeks flash deep red. For a moment, the 51-year-old actor and filmmaker almost seems recast as the excitable ``Meathead'' from the '70s TV show ``All in the Family.'' Only this time, his frustration isn't with Archie Bunker, his crotchety and ultra-conservative father-in-law from the sitcom. Reiner's nemesis now is the tobacco industry, which is battling his pet project, Proposition 10. The statewide initiative would raise up to $750 million a year for a slew of young children's services by raising cigarette taxes 50 cents a pack. Several business and taxpayer groups have denounced the measure as wasteful and misguided. But the most resistance is coming from tobacco companies, which are digging deep into their corporate coffers to defeat the idea. ``Great cause, bad tax,'' says Tom Lauria, a spokesman for the Tobacco Institute -- the industry's main lobbyist. ``Who can argue with improving childhood development? But one can argue with the funding,'' which he said unfairly singles out smokers. Reiner's response ``I'm sick of it,'' Reiner howls in response. ``I'm sick of these people killing our kids and not having to be held accountable for it. . . . I mean we're trying to help kids here.'' Proposition 10, which gathered nearly 1.2 million signatures to qualify for the Nov. 3 ballot, is formally known as the California Children and Families Initiative. But many people simply call it the Reiner Initiative. That's understandable. Reiner, the maker of such films as ``This is Spinal Tap,'' ``When Harry Met Sally'' and ``Ghosts of Mississippi,'' is not just the measure's most prominent pitchman. He approaches the role with an apostle's fervor. Tireless touter For months now, he has been tirelessly touting the concept throughout California at rallies, bull sessions with newspaper editorial boards and news conferences like one he attended Friday in San Francisco. So what makes him so concerned about kids? The eldest child of comic legend Carl Reiner and singer Estelle Reiner says it partly comes from having several young children of his own. But it wasn't until he began reading about what happens to youngsters who grow up without proper health care or intellectual stimulation, he adds, that he became convinced his initiative was essential. If he can get it passed in California, he vows to push similar measures in other states. ``I'm interested in jump-starting this for the rest of the country,'' Reiner says. He may be just the person to do that. Reiner, who founded Castle Rock Entertainment, has a name familiar to millions and a wide circle of friends that includes Bill and Hillary Clinton. And he isn't afraid to cash in on those contacts. Besides the $1.1 million of his own that he says he has pumped into the initiative, Steven Spielberg chipped in $100,000; Robin Williams, $25,000; and Michael Douglas, $5,000. As of the state's most recent finance reporting period, which ended June 30, Reiner had raised nearly $1.9 million. Even so, the campaign needs a lot more. He estimates it will require $4 million to $5 million just for advertising. And he predicts the opposition's media bill will be even costlier -- perhaps as much as $20 million. Tobacco officials, who began running anti-Proposition 10 ads last week, won't say how much they plan to invest. But Ron Gray, a spokesman for the opposition, put it this way: ``I anticipate that the no campaign will spend whatever it takes.'' No wonder. Including California's tobacco tax of 37 cents per 20 cigarettes and the 24 cents levied by the federal government, the average pack costs $2.55 in California, according to an analysis by the state Senate's Office of Research. Under Proposition 10, it said, that price would jump 20 percent -- to $3.05 -- beginning Jan. 1. For a one-pack-a-day smoker, that's $182.50 a year. A similar tax increase on cigars, chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco and snuff would start July 1. If a simple majority of voters approves the measure, the state's tobacco-related revenues could reach $750 million a year, although they would drop substantially in later years, analysts believe. That's because many smokers -- especially young people -- probably would find the habit so expensive they'd quit. Ultimately, the Senate study predicts, the added taxes might trim the ranks of teenage smokers by as much as 13 percent. The money raised would be funneled into a wide range of early childhood development programs -- everything from child care and parental training to children's health services and efforts to discourage pregnant women from using tobacco, alcohol or drugs. For the most part, the initiative doesn't specify which programs would be financed. Those decisions would be made by 59 new commissions. A statewide commission made up of seven voting members selected by the governor, speaker of the Assembly and Senate Rules Committee would oversee 20 percent of the revenue. The other 80 percent would be allocated by 58 county commissions, each appointed by county supervisors. How much counties would get depends on how many children are born there each year. Since Santa Clara County accounts for about 5 percent of all births statewide, it presumably would get about $37.5 million a year. Whatever the amount, Reiner says, ``it's a tremendous windfall'' locally. Money desperately needed That money is vitally needed, he and other supporters argue. Studies show that a child's future health and success largely hinges on the care they receive during their first three years. Yet many children, they say, aren't being helped. Leslie Carter, assistant director of San Jose State University's Frances Guilland Child Development Center, says publicly financed child care is particularly in short supply. Although her facility is partly subsidized by the government, it can handle only 58 children and often has to turn away youngsters. Carter, who helped gather Proposition 10 signatures, said some school-age parents have had to put off their educations ``because of not having that child care available.'' Other supporters include the California Division of the American Cancer Society, the California Medical Association and the California Teacher's Association. A number of liberal luminaries also are behind the measure, such as U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. So are some well-known conservatives, among them former Rep. Michael Huffington, a Republican. ``Not enough money is being spent on young kids when their brains are growing,'' says Huffington, who especially likes Proposition 10's plan to have local commissions divvy up the tobacco revenue. ``I think this is a great way of depoliticizing where the money goes.'' Others are far less enthusiastic -- particularly tobacco firms which have contributed the bulk of the nearly $700,000 raised as of June 30 to counter the measure. But opposition to Proposition 10 also comes from others, including the California Chamber of Commerce, some retail liquor associations and 29 Republican state lawmakers. Among other things, they contend it would create a vast, unaccountable bureaucracy, which would duplicate other agencies that already oversee early childhood services. They also dislike its lack of specifics about which programs would be financed, fear it would drive tobacco merchants out of business and complain that its revenue would be exempt from a state constitutional rule that gives public schools a portion of any new taxes. Crime increase predicted Moreover, a study for the Committee Against Unfair Taxes -- a group sponsored by tobacco firms and the California Distributors Association - -- claims it would increase crime. ``Bootleg cigarettes cost the state up to $125 million in lost taxes annually,'' the study says. ``This illegal activity would increase'' since ``per-carton sales and excise taxes would be $5.20 lower in Nevada; $3.90 less in Oregon; and $2.90 lower in Arizona.'' Another fear is that the poor -- who make up a disproportionate share of smokers -- would bear the brunt of the new taxes. Dee Cuney, who runs a child care facility in her Napa home and is an advocate for others in the business, also worries about the initiative's plan to boost government-paid child care. Because that would create new competition for family day care providers, who typically don't qualify for such public subsidies, Cuney says, ``it will be devastating.'' Criticism of measure It all adds up to a flawed initiative, argues Jane Armstrong of the Alliance of California Taxpayers and Involved Voters in Santa Cruz. ``I am opposed to smoking,'' said Armstrong. But Proposition 10, she says, ``is a clear example of how easy it is for a good idea to get messed up.'' Reiner isn't deterred by such criticism. Asked to respond, his body lurches forward in his chair and he bellows with indignation. He characterizes the arguments against Proposition 10 as little more than a smoke screen by tobacco firms interested only in preserving their profits. Reiner concedes there may be some things in the measure that people can legitimately quibble about. But overall, ``there is a common good here,'' he insists. ``This is an opportunity to not only reduce smoking, but to invest in young children . . . We have to do it.'' 1997 - 1998 Mercury Center. - --- Checked-by: Don Beck