By Morgan Abraham
(Editor’s note: Committee Opposing Proposition 123 chairperson Morgan Abraham submitted this essay to the editorial board of the Arizona Republic to counter the misrepresentations they presented in their endorsement. They declined to print it.)
As Chair of the Opposition to Proposition 123 I have tried my best to stay out of the opinion section of papers. I have been able to have my say in the campaign’s video “Triggers, Trusts and Tax Cuts”. However, I was so disheartened by yesterday’s Republic editorial on Prop123 I felt I had to respond. Why now? Because it is dangerous to pretend that there is nothing wrong with Prop123 and paint opponents as nothing more than political operatives.
Unlike what the Republic Editorial Board believes, opposition to Prop123 has nothing to do with a referendum on our Governor nor is it a group of angry liberals and conservatives wanting to get even with the political establishment. Opposition against Prop123 has to do with the attachments to the proposition. Because the Republic editorial board clearly does not understand why so many people all around the state are voting no on Prop123, let me explain.
First, we are voting no on Prop123 because we are against the triggers that will limit, forever, how much we spend on education. Put simply, if we vote yes on Prop123 we will be voting yes on adding a trigger to our constitution that limits, again forever, how much we can spend on K-12 education.
Second, we oppose 123 because we are against the depletion of the land trust. There is no such thing as free money. When we spend extra money from the land trust we do so at the expense of the future. When you look at the numbers and factor in inflation, a student in 10 years will receive significantly less money from the land trust then a student does right now.
Third, we are voting no because we are against politicians being able to sidestep voter initiatives. In 2000 Prop 301 was approved by the people. Part of Prop 301 was setting a minimum level in how much voters want the legislature and governor to spend on K-12 education. Prop123 changes the minimum level of funding.
Fourth, we oppose Prop 123 because we can settle this lawsuit with the budget surplus. Our state treasure has clearly shown this lawsuit can be settled with the budget surplus. Why aren’t we doing that?
Fifth, we are against Prop123 because it is not sustainable. Prop123 funding will run out in 2025. At that time we will also have a depleted land trust. In 2026 we will back in the same position as today.
I know a lot of people who agree with these points and are still voting ‘Yes’ because they want schools to get money now. I understand and have no problem with this approach. Where I do have a problem is when people like the Republic Editorial Board pretend there is nothing wrong with Prop 123 and the people who are against it are doing so for political reasons. Bottom line Prop 123 is a really bad deal and whether you vote yes or no, it is important to acknowledge this so we never find ourselves in this position again.
Morgan Abraham is the chairperson of the Committee Opposing Proposition 123 and a small business owner in Tucson.
Related articles:
Reagan Tips The Scale For Prop 123: Sunday’s Comic
Impeachment Of Reagan, Firing Of Spencer Sought In Prop 123 Failure