by David Safier
Kavanagh wants to sweep money from special funds to help balance the state budget. It's a terrible idea on its face, as many people have pointed out.
But one of his terrible ideas gave me a potentially good idea.
Kavanagh singled out, in particular, an 80-cent-a-pack tax on cigarettes approved by voters in 2006. That cash is earmarked for programs to improve early childhood development. He said there is about $350 million gathered in that fund.
"It's crazy to be banking hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in dedicated tax money for special areas that we could use to help get us out of this mess," Kavanagh said. "I don't see how you get out of a $2 billion hole without using every resource that you can."
Here's why this program, First Things First, has $350 million in its coffers. It's been banking the tobacco money until it can be assured it has enough to fund its early childhood education and health program for at least 8 to 10 years. That much time is needed to be able to assess the value of the program.
Here's my idea. The state borrows all or part of the funds from the First Things First program and pays it back at the same level of interest it would be paying to lease back the state buildings it's talking about "selling" to private interests. That way, instead of the dollars flowing out of government coffers into private hands, a net loss for the state, the money would stay with a government-funded program and increase its viability.
It wouldn't cover the whole bill, of course. But a few hundred million is a few hundred million.
The idea sounds too good and too easy. There must be something wrong with it.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Suspend or repeal the Voter Protection Act? Another question might be when has there been a year that the legislature hasn’t whined about it and tried to get rid of it?
Just the idea that Az voters needed such an act to get the legislature to support what voters approve is an example of much people in this state have become marginalized in government. The legislature continually ignores funding social programs that voters approve – and sure enough, what did they do again? Stop funding social programs as their first line to controlling the budget.
Wrong. I don’t think even the conservatives could confuse this issue. Voters want to be represented and that includes funding what they vote for. Without this act, it’s a free for all and all that would be funded would be programs that support their own personal pocket books. Most people realize this is their voice – and the legislature knew it by refusing to allow a “temporary tax increase” go to vote. It would have probably been approved.
They really are on a different planet. There’s not a chance in hell that would be approved and that’s not even a political divide. The only voice the public has comes from the Voter Protection Act. It’s doesn’t matter what pocket it’s coming from. It won’t be weakened.
Kavanagh wants to suspend, if not outright repeal, the Voter Protection Act (Prop. 105), an initiative approved by the voters to protect funding for education and health care programs approved by the voters – programs the legislature had refused to enact. This will require the voters to approve a ballot proposition under the Arizona Constitution; it cannot be done by legislative act.
The position Democrats and responsible Republicans (as opposed to Grover Norquist Republicans) should take is that Prop. 105 does not get referred back to the voters unless and until Prop. 108 – the two-thirds super-majority rule for all tax matters, is also referred back to the voters. It’s a package deal, you do not get one without the other.
After another year of bloodletting at the state capitol, I suspect that by next November, voters would reject the suspension/repeal of Prop. 105 and would approve the repeal of Prop. 108. Then maybe we can finally begin a rational serious discussion about tax reforms in this state. That cannot happen as long as Prop. 108 remains in the Arizona Constitution.
I’ll point out the fault in your idea. If the State of Arizona borrows that money to pay for general expenditures then it may well never pay it back to the fund (an idea I imagine the original sponsoring organization will remind the legislature). The problem is a variation of fungibility – if you eliminate the spending mandate then there might as well be no mandate at all.
It really is another iteration of the Tucson proposition 200 concept in reverse, if there is no mandate there is no guarantee the money will be spent as its advocates intended.
Or, they could just raise taxes and pay for the obligations that we have.