For those of you who didn’t receive a voter information packet, who ignored your voter information packet, or who read your voter information packet—whether or not you realized it did not tell the whole story—here is the fundamental reality:
Proposition 123, when you follow the dollars, does cause an increase in taxes, in two ways:
- It consumes resources held in trust pro bono publico at a significantly faster rate, and
- It sets up the taxpayers of Arizona to have to replace the funds in ten years’ time.
In the first case, the compound effect of eroding principal from the Land Trust Fund will be irreversible and will haunt the State in perpetuity. In the second, the 123 funds set the precedent; though the funding source sunsets in ten years, the law comes with no provision for schools to reduce their spending in the same time. Proposition 123 trickles in huge tax increases over the next decade.
Governor Ducey himself states that 123 funds figure into the “baseline formula” and provide settlement to an expensive lawsuit. (In a radio interview last week, Governor Ducey was also quick to note that the state would waste several years and millions of dollars on that same lawsuit without 123.) “Baseline formula” refers to the State budget, not districts’ budgets. In fact, the FY 2017 budget for the State of Arizona explicitly states that it “assumes passage of Proposition 123 at the May 2016 Special Election”. With that passage, the budget reduces regular Education funding and shuffles $52 back into the General Fund. After some crafty accounting credits and debits, the State would effectively take $52 million from the Land Trust and use that money for any purpose it capriciously desires: 123 funds are not wholly in addition to, but take the place of regular State spending on education. Further, because of a court ruling that the State owes its school districts funding for the years of the recession (this being the lawsuit Ducey mentioned), 123 allows the State to use Land Trust dollars to fulfill those payments.
While using Land Trust funds to pay schools does indeed make sense, the Governor’s assertion that not passing 123 would embroil that settlement in further debate and delays is absurd: If the Legislature could craft a bill and refer it to the public to change the Land Trust formula entirely, the Legislature can just as easily draft a bill for referral to the public to take a one-time charge against the Land Trust to settle the suit.
And, considering that the State’s revenues that satisfy its budget ultimately only come from taxes (as an example, the leases on State Trust lands that contribute to the Land Trust are a tax on land usage), and considering that the state will add $52 million to its General Fund via its presumptive passage of 123, the State stands to increase tax revenues by $52 million for the General Fund alone. That is avenue number three in which Proposition 123 is a tax increase, no matter what the politicians and the lobbyists want you to believe:
- It increases the State’s General Fund by reallocating education dollars.
In Governor Ducey’s radio soliloquy, he was quick to point out that the State’s school district administrators know better than he how to appropriate funds. Perhaps that holds true in some districts. In Tucson Unified, where the Superintendent takes a salary higher than almost any superintendent in the country and where, in FY2016, the District actually reduced classroom spending while significantly increasing multiple categories of administration spending, almost every Arizona taxpayer knows better than the District how to appropriate funds! Governor Ducey further suggested that the State can replace leadership in failing districts. He did not mention by what authority; the taxpayers within each school district—who provide the bulk of the funding for the districts—are the individuals who vote in the school boards. Neither the State nor the Governor appoint those positions. Though he meant to portray a position of power, the Governor tacitly admitted that there is nothing in 123 that ensures students benefit from the increased spending.
When you cast your vote Tuesday, you will have two options for Proposition 123. The information packet and the ballot should read as follows:
A vote of “yes” on Proposition 123 shall fail to guarantee that students directly benefit from increased funding, shall reallocate $52 million from education to the General Fund, shall ensure that taxpayers bear the burden of sustaining school budgets after 2025, and shall enable the Governor and the Legislature to balance the budget using funds expressly limited to school funding.
A vote of “no” on Proposition 123 shall conclusively warn the districts that the taxpayers do not trust them to budget, shall express a lack of confidence in our current education administrators and their interest in benefitting students, shall demand of the Legislature a sound replacement plan for increasing school efficiency and efficacy, and shall protect Arizona citizens from significant tax hikes in ten years.
Related articles:
Reagan Tips The Scale For Prop 123: Sunday’s Comic
Impeachment Of Reagan, Firing Of Spencer Sought In Prop 123 Failure