The Arizona Republic’s resident GOP apologist, the patrician prevaricator for the Plutocracy, George Will’s mini-me Robert Robb, who used to troll for the Goldwater Institute and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry before doing it under the auspices of being a pundit for The Republic, says opponents of Prop. 123 are being “naive.”
How dare you stand up against the corporate Plutocrats behind this proposition. Do you really believe that you can win? Robb: Proposition 123 opponents are being naive:
[H]ere is where the naiveté of the League of Women Voters and other opponents kicks in. There are only three possible alternatives to Prop. 123: (1) election of a radically different governor and set of legislators; (2) continuing with the lawsuit until there is actually a final order of the state Supreme Court of a specific amount that the Legislature then appropriates; or (3) an initiative with a funding source not requiring action by the Legislature.
Well, Bob, it’s long past time that the citizens of this state pick door number one and rid this state of a decades-long GOP culture of corruption. Voters have a moral obligation to hold our lawless Tea-Publican legislators and governor accountable for their lawlessness. Are we a nation of laws, or not?
A new Democratic legislature will enforce Prop. 301 and provide for education funding without making permanent damaging changes to the Arizona Constitution, or risk depleting the state land trusts.
Tim Steller of the Arizona Daily Star makes an interesting observation, Arizona’s Prop. 123 looking a bit like failed bond election:
A vague sense of déja vu is starting to well up in me, something other voters may also sense.
I remember that last year a well-funded campaign for public spending in Pima County went down in flames thanks to a fed-up electorate — Democrats and Republicans — as well as a tiny, impoverished opposition campaign with a well-placed elected official, Supervisor Ally Miller, as chief spokesperson.
Pima County bonds election, meet Proposition 123.
A similar dynamic may be developing around the education-funding proposal that goes to Arizona voters May 17 — or sooner if you get an early ballot. A “no” campaign with no paid staff seems to be gaining momentum, thanks in part to outspoken opposition by state Treasurer Jeff DeWit and former holders of his office.
That’s despite the fact that Gov. Doug Ducey and the state’s power structure are behind the ballot measure. Led by the Paradise Valley-Scottsdale crowd, contributors have given $3.7 million to the “yes” campaign. The “no” campaign reported receiving $617 at the last deadline, though that figure has since reached $4,000 to $5,000, chairman Morgan Abraham told me.
And yet, there’s life in the “no” campaign. On Thursday, former Congressman Ron Barber became one of the more high-profile Arizonans to come out in opposition to the proposition.
“It is my belief Prop. 123 will do far more harm than good,” Barber said in a video. “The issues I have with Prop. 123 include numerous triggers that will allow the Legislature to keep money from public education, the fact that it changes our constitution, and the real concern that it depletes our state land trust by eating into the principal.”
I’ve come out in grudging favor of the proposition, which would resolve a lawsuit over school funding against the state Legislature and allow some additional spending for next school year. I think it’s the best we can expect from our current elected officials, and we need to change them if we want better.
Then pick door number one, Timmy.
But there is certainly merit in the arguments against, arguments that are embraced by many Republicans as well as Democrats. And the more people come out against the measure, the more it opens the door for others to have the political courage to do the same.
It’s time to stand up and hold our lawless Tea-Publican legislators and governor accountable.
I feel for the people like Lynda who just want any amount of money to flow into the classroom. The problem is that they are so desperate to see any increase in educational funding they are failing to see that that bridge in Brooklyn is not really for sale. This is an absolute disgrace on so many levels. The biggest problem, however, is the true purpose of this prop. Ducey and his cohorts have brilliantly put together a plan to illegally rob our public school trust fund with a thinly dissguised vail of a prop. If 123 passes our schools will not see a dime. Ducey will be able to say he never raised taxes AND funded schools, but what will really happen with these numerous triggers is no funding to public education will take place. Once these funds are freed the leg will pass laws the very next opportunity that gives this money away to private schools and other sources. We would be essentially illegally giving the leg and gov free access to one of the final funding sources for our schools. This is all planned and do not think for a minute it has not been carefully hashed out. (I do think they will never get to use that money if it passes due to a lawsuit in fedral court, but a no vote makes a statement that needs to be made)