And that's the real story of Proposition 1D and Proposition 1E, both which were placed on the ballot by the Legislature in hopes of funneling more money into the state's beleaguered general fund. Of course, they also would mean money taken from programs voters endorsed in 1998 and 2004.

Our radio report on the measures aired this morning on The California Report.

The two measures are not identical; one makes only temporary changes in funding for mental health programs, the other both temporary and permanent changes in money earmarked for early childhood development programs. But they've been lumped together, even by foes, largely because they represent an effort in the February budget package to cobble together enough revenue to make the books balance... and... because they are dollars that only the voters can release.

Combined, Props 1D and 1E would provide about $838 million for the budget year that begins on July 1, and a few hundred million dollars in the next few fiscal years after that. Prop 1D takes about half the tobacco tax revenues that voters earmarked for early childhood development programs in 1998. Prop 1E takes money from a 1% tax on personal incomes above $1 million that voters set aside for mental health programs in 2004.

"It's a nightmare," said Rusty Selix of the Mental Health Association in California. "It's obviously a worse scenario than any that we foresaw when we were writing the initiative."

Selix says that nightmare has only intensified since legislators placed Prop 1E on the ballot back in February, because the economic slowdown has meant lower incomes for California millionaires... meaning there will be less money than originally earmaked for mental health... and, as a result, Prop 1E won't just be using what's been described as surplus funds.

"There's no way of taking this money out of the system without reducing the amount that will be spent," says Selix of mental health programs funded by what was approved by voters as Proposition 63.

Over in the world of early childhood development programs, the dollar amounts at stake the May 19 election would take away are larger... and, in some cases, permanent. Prop 1D would modify the voter-approved Proposition 10, which increased the tax levied on tobacco to fund early childhood development programs, through commissions on both the state and local levels.

Prop 1D's impact on the state commission would probably be the most long lasting, and comes after some well-publicized battles about how some dolllars are spent.

"The more we looked at, the more concerned that we became," says Sen. Dave Cox (R-Fair Oaks), the Legislature's most prominent advocate for shifting money out of the early childhood programs. Cox admits that some programs are effective, but nonetheless thinks the voters have the right to change their minds. The campaign in support of Prop 1D says the measure would help fund other child-focused programs inside the state budget.

Some opponents, though, see that very fact as a lose-lose situation. One of those is Patty Siegel, executive director of the California Child Care Resource & Referral Network. Siegel says programs designed to help parents find quality child care are funded by both Prop 10 dollars and the state's deficit-ridden general fund. If Prop 1D passes, her programs are hurt; if it fails, they'll also be hurt.

"It's really a Sophie's Choice," she said last week during a rally at the state Capitol.

Some typical supporters of childhoood and mental health programs are, this time, on the other side. The most high profile of these is Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, who co-authored the Prop 63 millionaire's tax five years ago.

"It is awkward," he admitted in a recent interview, but then added: "Given the choices, and given the impact on other health and human services programs, I felt like this really is a budget about shared sacrifice."

Setting aside those issues for a moment, the proposals are also another example of the novelties inside the system in which California governance -- where voters, not elected officials, are in the driver's seat. 2004's Prop 63 is a good example of a measure that, as an initiative statute, would play out differently in another state.

"In most initiative states, the Legislature would have been able to make this kind of change without going back to the voters," says Floyd Feeney, a professor at the UC Davis School of Law.

(In the case of Prop 1D, the initiative it seeks to change -- Prop 10 -- was an amendment to the state constitution.)

And here's one more twist, one which makes it easier to understand why so many of these decisions are on the ballot: both Prop 10 and Prop 63 established new taxes through a simple majority vote of the people. For a new tax to be enacted at the state Capitol, it takes a supermajority vote of the Legislature.

Prop 63 author Rusty Selix is quick to point out that the supermajority vote for a tax hike in the Legislature was created... and still supported by... the voters. (Prop 63, on the other hand, got 54% of the vote in November 2004.)

"They're not going to make it easier for the Legislature to raise taxes," he says. "We'd prefer you could make decisions on a rational basis in the legislative process. But the fact is, that is the California we live with."

Unlike press releases heralding earlier ads, there was no notification to the media that the Budget Reform Now campaign was launching a new ad, one featuring a firefighter warning of possible bad times ahead.

The ad, seen above, is a pitch solely in support of Proposition 1A and Proposition 1B. Even the longstanding logo of the campaign (used in the first TV ad pitching all six measures) has been replaced with a more focused graphic that says "Yes On 1A + 1B."

Campaign spokesperson Julie Soderlund says the new ad is the result of a "strategic decision" to talk about these two measures, and that the omnibus campaign is working with supporters of Proposition 1C, who would then pick up the ball on that measure. Soderlund also says that other parts of the omnibus campaign team's efforts remain focused on all six measures. "TV is just one way we're reaching voters," she says.

Now to the substance, delivered by a firefighter identified as Capt. Chris Judd of the L.A. County Fire Department.

"Without Props 1A and 1B," says Judd (with just the perfect amount of soot dabbed on his forehead), "we have $16 billion in new [state budget] cuts coming."

That's a reasonable claim about Prop 1A, which extends a package of tax increases agreed to by the Legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger. But it's a misleading claim about Prop 1B; on the contrary, that measure would ostensibly spend some of the tax revenues brought in by passage of Prop 1A.

As we've reported, Prop 1B is a $9 billion payment to public schools on top of what they're already expecting over the next few years. So how does passage of Prop 1B help avoid budget cuts?

Only in the final sentence of the TV ad does Judd alude to a purported benefit of Prop 1B: helping "get California back on track." Presumably, that includes more money for K-12 education and community colleges.

Campaign spokesperson Soderlund says Prop 1B is the only way to provide money for schools after budgets were cut this year. "There will be even more [school budget] damage if 1B doesn't pass," she said.

Still, the new TV ad feels like a major pivot in the campaign led by Governor Schwarzenegger and his allies, towards the two measures on which they're most focused. Business interests like the Prop 1A spending restraint and reserve fund; the California Teachers Association likes Prop 1B's extra money for schools. And it's no coincidence that those groups are also the biggest money players in the May 19 special election campaign.

Most observers would guess that the pivot is, in part, a realization that polling shows almost all of the measures on the ropes... and that, if nothing else, Props 1A and 1B need to pass for the campaign's financial backers to be able to declare victory. Ironically, any shift away from the other three budget measures -- Propositions 1C, 1D, and 1E -- is also a shift away from a balanced state budget in the fiscal year that begins July 1.

After all, those three measures account for about $6 billion in revenues that have already been scored to help balance the books. Their defeat would instantly deepen the fiscal hole lawmakers will have to crawl out of later this year.